Compensation for loss of dependency must be just and reasonable, reflecting the deceased's age and circumstances, as established by prior judgments.

Order

16/10/2024

1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that service of notice upon respondent Nos.1 and 2 may be dispensed with.

At the risk and cost of learned counsel for the appellant, service of notice upon respondent Nos.1 and 2 is dispensed with.

2. Service of application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is complete.

3. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the appellants for condoning the delay of 4 days caused in filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Vishal Singhal puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.3-insurance company.

5. The present civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘ MV Act ’) assailing the judgment and award dated 20.02.2015 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran, District Pali, (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.98/2013, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimants under Section 166 of the MV Act and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/-, in favour of respondents/claimants along with interest @ 9% p.a.from the date of filing the claim petition, while fastening the liability jointly and severally upon the respondents.

6. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 23.09.2013, when Motilal, Surajmal, Rahul, Kamla and Arun (deceased) were going on a motorcycle, a tempo bearing number RJ-22-GA-4302 hit the motorcycle on acount of which all persons sitting on the motorcycle fell down and Arun (deceased) sustained grievous injury and succumbed to death. Thereafter, a claim under Section 166 was filed before the learned Tribunal, wherein on 20.02.2015 partly allowed the claim petition while awarding Rs. 2,25,000/- to the appellant-claimants with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the application, i.e. 27.09.2013. Thus, aggrieved of the judgment and award dated 20.02.2015, the appellant-claimants have preferred the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding a lump-sum amount of Rs.2,25,000/- to the claimants and the same deserves to be enhanced.

8. Per contra , learned counsel for the respodent-Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and calls for no interference by this Court.

9. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding a meagre sum of Rs.2,25,000/- towards the death of the deceased, Arun, aged 3 years and thus, deems it fit to assess a just compensation which is reasonable according to the underlying facts and circumstances of the case along with the evidence placed on record, in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meena Devi v Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Others [ Civil Appeal No. 7255 of 2022 decided on 13.10.2022 ] and Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another [ CIVIL APPEAL NO.6902 OF 2021 decided on 16.11.2021 ].

10. This Court also deems it just to take the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- while computing the loss of dependency, looking at the age of the deceased, i.e. three years. Moreover, while taking into consideration the judgments cited herein above, this Court also deems it just to award Rs.1,15,000/- towards the conventional heads to the appellant/claimants.

11. Thus, after arriving at the conclusion that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be enhanced in MAC Case No. 98/2013, this Court directed both the counsels to jointly submit the calculation of the compensation awardable to the claimants, afresh in light of the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi (supra) and Kurvan Ansari (supra) which they have furnished before this Court in a tabular form as below: