Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Pinki Rani and another - Appellants
Versus
Jaswinder @ Kala and others - Respondents
FAO No. 103 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 04-10-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ravindra Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate
The main legal point established is the application of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and the consideration of loss of love and affection and funeral expenses in determining compensation for the death of a child in a motor vehicle accident.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation for Death of Child - Section 166 - Second Schedule - Asha Verman and others Vs. Maharaj Singh and others - 2014 (1) SCC 244, 2013(9) SCC 65, 2015(4) SCC (Civil) 767
Fact of the Case:
Nitin, a 6-year-old boy, was fatally injured in a motor vehicle accident. His parents filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which the claimants sought to enhance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in not considering loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. It referred to legal provisions and precedents to reassess the compensation, awarding additional amounts for loss of love and affection and funeral expenses.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, specifically regarding loss of love and affection and funeral expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal provisions and precedents to determine the appropriate compensation, considering the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and the decision in Asha Verman and others Vs. Maharaj Singh and others.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, enhancing the awarded amount and directing interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 8.9.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short 'the Tribunal').
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are as under:
3. On 17.8.2010 Nitin aged 6 years old boy was struck by rashly and negligently driven motor cycle bearing registration No. HR02-L- 2041 (for short 'the offending vehicle'). As a result of the accident, the boy suffered multiple grievous injuries and was taken to Sharma Hospital, Jagadhri, from there he was taken to Jindal hospital where he remained admitted upto 25.8.2010 and he ultimately succumbed to his injuries. FIR No. 156 dated 17.8.2010 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Yamuna Nagar.
4. The unfortunate parents who lost their child filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The Tribunal after considering witnesses and evidence produced, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,89,100/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum. The said amount awarded included Rs. 1,09,100/- on account of medical expenses.
5. Aggrieved of the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has only awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- for the death of 6 years old child. He further argued that no amount was awarded for loss of love and affection and for funeral expenses.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 defended the award and opposed the enhancement of compensation.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants deserves acceptance in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Kishan Gopal and another Versus Lala and others 2014 (1) SCC 244, wherein it was held as under:
''18. Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered together in favour of the appellants for the following reasons:-
The Tribunal having answered the contentious issue No.1, against the appellants in its judgment the same is concurred with by the High Court by assigning erroneous reasons and it has affirmed dismissal of the claim petition of the appellants holding that the accident did not take place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the first respondent and therefore the contentious issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative against the appellants and it has not awarded compensation in favour of the appellants.
Since we have set aside the findings and reasons recorded by both the Tribunal and the High Court on the contentious issue Nos. 1 & 2 by recording our reasons in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment and we have answered the point in favour of the appellants and also examined the claim of the appellants to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellants as they have lost their affectionate 10 year old son. For this purpose, it would be necessary for us to refer to Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, at clause No.6 which refers to notional income for compensation to those persons who had no income prior to accident. The relevant portion of clause No.6 states as under:
''6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident:
.....
(a) Non-earning person- Rs. 15,000/- p.a.”
9. In the above decision, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that in case of death of a child, help can be taken from Second Schedule of the Act and his income can be assessed as non-earning person Rs. 15,000/- per annum.
10. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others Versus Madan Mohan and another, 2013(9) SCC 65 has held as under:
''34. If the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the table read with paragraph 42 of the Report in Sarla Verma is fol
