IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARCHANA PURI, J.
Parkash and another - Appellants
Versus
Shiv Charan and others - Respondents
FAO-918-2002 (O&M)
Decided on : 01-09-2023
Compensation - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 163A - [Kishan Gopal and another v/s Lala and others, 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 276; Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another v/s Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, Civil Appeal No.6902 of 2021 decided on 16.11.2021; Meena Devi v/s Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and others, 2022(4) RCR (Civil) 553; Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77; Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 (18) SCC 130; Harpreet Kaur and others vs. Mohinder Yadav and others, 2023(1) RCR (Civil) 327; Janabai and others vs. M/s I.C.I.C.I. Lambord Insurance Company Ltd., 2022(4) RCR (Civil) 85] - The court discussed and referenced various cases under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, particularly Section 163A, to determine the compensation for the death of a child in a motor vehicular accident. The court considered notional income, multipliers, loss of dependency, filial consortium, parental consortium, and spousal consortium in its assessment of compensation, relying on legal principles established in previous judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought enhancement of compensation for the death of their son in a motor vehicular accident. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.70,000/- as compensation, which the appellants found meagre.
Finding of the Court:
The court re-evaluated the compensation based on various legal principles and previous judgments, ultimately granting an enhanced compensation of Rs.5,71,000/- after deducting the original amount awarded by the Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue was the adequacy of the compensation awarded for the death of the appellants' son in a motor vehicular accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles established in previous judgments to determine the appropriate compensation, considering factors such as notional income, multipliers, loss of dependency, and various forms of consortium.
Final Decision: The present appeal was allowed, and the impugned Award dated 18.10.2001 was modified to grant an enhanced compensation of Rs.5,71,000/- to the appellants.
JUDGMENT :
ARCHANA PURI, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation, so awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on account of death of their son Vikram, aged 9 years, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 17.08.2000.
2. On appraisal of the evidence brought on record, learned Tribunal had granted compensation, to the extent of Rs.70,000/- along with interest @9% per annum.
3. Being dissatisfied with the awarded amount, the appellants claimants have filed the present appeal for seeking enhancement of the compensation, vis-a-vis death of their son Vikram, in the accident in question.
4. So far as the fact of accident and manner of its taking place, as well as liability fastened upon the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, to be joint and several are concerned, it is pertinent to mention that no appeal has been filed by the persons, so made liable to challenge the Award and thus, findings so recorded by learned Tribunal have attained finality.
5. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that compensation granted, on account of death of their son Vikram, in the accident, is meagre, which calls for extensive enhancement.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance company has refuted the claim of the appellants-claimants, while asserting that no satisfactory evidence has been led to seek compensation, as now impressed upon and thus, he submits that the appeal sans merit and deserves to be dismissed.
7. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that deceased Vikram was 9 years old, who was asserted to be student of 3rd Class, but however, PW-1 Parkash, his father, while deposing in the witness box has stated about his son to be student of 1st Class. Learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.65,000/- in lumpsum as compensation and further amount of Rs.5,000/- has been granted, on account of performance of last rites and transportation etc. In total, Rs.70,000/- has been granted as compensation. However, it should be noted that no reason, as such, has been assigned for assessing the lumpsum amount.
8. It is pertinent to mention that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as 'Kishan Gopal and another v/s Lala and others, 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 276', while considering the death of a child, aged 10 years took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- and applied multiplier of 15' and compensation came to be Rs.4.5 lakh. Another Rs.50,000/- was given towards love, affection, funeral expenses and last rites. The accident in that case, related to the year 1992.
9. Even, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another v/s Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, Civil Appeal No.6902 of 2021 decided on 16.11.2021” considered the case of death of 7 years old child, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place in the year 2004 and made certain observations, which are as under:-
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, particularly Section 163A, to determine compensation for the death of a chil....
The court established that the notional income for a non-earning child should be set at Rs.30,000 per annum, applying a multiplier of 15 for calculating compensation, considering inflation and emotio....
The court established that compensation for a deceased child must consider notional income and emotional loss, applying relevant legal precedents for fair assessment.
Fatal accident – It is appropriate to take notional income of child victim at Rs.25,000/- per annum, taking into account inflation, devaluation of rupee and cost of living.
Point of Law : In spite of repeated directions, Scheduled-II of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not yet amended. Therefore, fixing notional income of Rs.15,000/-per annum for non earning members is not j....
Notional figure fixed by the Apex Court since Manju Devi's judgment has been consistently Rs.2,25,000/- for children below the age of 15 years.
Under MV Act, there is no restriction that Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding amount so claimed – Tribunal/Court ought to award ‘just’ compensation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.