IMPORTANT POINT
Quantification of damages—A child’s notional income cannot be ascertained as per figure given for non-earning individuals.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 166—Accident—Compensation—Quantification of damages—Quantification of damages divided under different heads must be very carefully observed by courts while awarding compensation to victims of motor-vehicle accidents—It is extremely essential for courts to consider two main components of damages i.e. both pecuniary and non pecuniary damages as per guidelines laid down by Apex Court so that just and reasonable compensation is awarded to injured. (Para 10)
       (2012)10 SCC 177 ; (1995) 1 SCC 551—Relied.
       (B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 166—Accident—Compensation—Contributory negligence—Permanent disability and loss of future earning—Appellant-minors were just 10 and 15 years old at the time of accident—They have undergone immense physical pain and suffering as well as mental shock and trauma at a very tender age—Trauma undergone by appellant-minors due to motor accident could have a severe and long-lasting effect—Tribunal has calculated future loss of income by taking notional income of each appellant-minor as Rs.15,000/-per annum—A child’s notional income cannot be ascertained as per figure given for non-earning individuals in second schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 —As Tribunal and the High Court have not followed principles laid down by Apex Court by awarding loss of future income due to permanent disability, same has to be set aside—It is fit and proper to award Rs.3,00,000/-towards permanent disability of appellant-minors—Negligence is wholly on part of driver of offending tractor since he was driving heavier vehicle—25% contributory negligence on part of appellant-father as apportioned by High Court set aside—Compensation awarded to appellants towards medical expenses by Tribunal and enhancement of same by High Court to appellant-father maintained—Compensation under various heads modified. (Paras 12, 13, 18 to 21)
       AIR 2014 SC 736 ; (2013) 9 SCC 166 ; (2009)6 SCC 121 ; (2009)6 SCC 121—Relied.
       (C) Torts—Road accident—Quantification of damages—Contributory negligence—In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on part of any individual. . (Para 13)
       Facts of case—
       Case pertains to road accident causing serious injuries to victims. Tribunal apportioned contributory negligence at 50% on part of appellant-father who was riding motorcycle on which appellant-minors were the pillion riders and 50% on driver of offending tractor. High Court set aside deduction arising out of contributory negligence from compensation determined towards permanent disability for appellant-minors. High Court also reduced contributory negligence on part of appellant-father (motorcyclist) from 50% to 25%. Further, High Court enhanced compensation of appellant-minor daughter by Rs. 30,000/-, appellant- minor-son by Rs.25,000/- and appellant-father by Rs.65,000/-(Rs.30,000/-lump sum and Rs.35,000/-towards medical expenses) to be paid with interest @ Rs.7.5% per annum vide its impugned judgment and order dated 06.11.2012. Aggrieved by impugned Judgment and order, appellants filed instant appeals.
       Findings of Court—
       Medical attendants were taken for appellants’ care for 3 months during their treatment and rest period. Tribunal and High Court have erred in not awarding compensation towards the same. Therefore, we award Rs.9,000/-each towards attendant’s charges (Rs.3,000/-per month for each attendant) and Rs. 5,000/- each towards transportation charges. Further, we are of the view that Tribunal and High Court have erred in granting interest rate at only 6% p.a. and 7.5% p.a. respectively on total compensation amount instead of 9% p.a. by applying decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy. Accordingly, we award interest @9% p.a. on compensation determined in these appeals.

JUDGMENT

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

2. These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common Judgment and order dated 06.11.2012 passed in Misc. Application Nos. 2575 of 2010, 2574 of 2010 and 2579 of 2010 by the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Bench at Jabalpur, urging various grounds. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(c) Nos. 21666 of 2013 and 21670 of 2013 have been filed by Kumari Kiran and Master Sachin respectively, through their father Harinarayan as they are minors, while Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(c) No. 21671 of 2013 has been filed by the appellant Harinarayan.

3. The necessary relevant facts are stated as under:

On 04.06.2009, Kumari Kiran and her brother Master Sachin (the pillion riders, hereinafter referred to as the appellant-minors) were going on a motor cycle to their village Shujalpur from Bhopal with their father Harinarayan, (rider of the motor cycle, hereinafter referred to as the appellant-father). While on their way, a tractor bearing No. MP13K1981 driven by Sajjan Singh (respondent No.1), collided with the motor cycle on which the appellants were riding. Due to the impact of this collision the appellants fell down and sustained grievous injuries. After medical examination, it was concluded that all the three appellants had fractured their femur, tibia and fibula bones on their right leg and had to undergo an operation at National Hospital Bhopal where a rod and a ring were implanted on each one of their right leg. Upon further medical examination, it was found that the right leg of all the three appellants had become one inch shorter due to the injuries caused to them in the accident. Therefore, the appellant-minor daughter and the appellant- father were determined with 30% permanent disability and the appellant-minor-son was determined with 20% permanent disability by the doctor who had treated them.

4. A First Information Report was lodged in Mandi Shujalpur Police Station against the driver (respondent No.1) of the offending tractor under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the

Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’).

5. The appellants filed a claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal. The Tribunal after considering the facts, evidence produced on record and the circumstances of the case, apportioned contributory negligence at 50% on the part of the appellant-father who was riding the motorcycle on which the appellant-minors were the pillion riders and 50% on the driver of the offending tractor.

6. The Tribunal vide its award dated 19.03.2010 ascertained the compensation due to the appellants as per the calculations stated in the table below:

	Particulars	Kumari Kiran	Master Sachin	Harinarayan
1.	Notional income	Rs.15,000/- p.a.	Rs.15,000/- p.a.	Rs.18,000/-p.a.
2.	Multiplier	15	15	15
3.	Income for whole life	Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.15,000/- X 15)	Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.15,000/- X 15)	Rs.2,70,000/- (Rs.18,000/- X 15)
4.	Future loss of income due to permanent disability	Rs.67,500/- (30% of Rs.2,25,000/-)	Rs.45,000/- (20% of Rs.2,25,000/-)	Rs.81,000/- (30% of Rs.2,70,000/-)
5.	Agony	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.5,000/-
6.	Diet	Rs.3,000/-	Rs.3,000/-	Rs.3,000/-
7.	Medical expenses	Rs.69,844/-	Rs. 84,876/-	Rs.1,51,154/-
8.	Loss of income	-	-	Rs.4,500/-
9.	Total compensation under all heads	Rs.1,45,344/-	Rs.1,37,876/-	Rs.2,44,654/- (Rounded off to Rs.2,44,500/-)
10.	50% deduction towards contributory negligence	Rs.72,672/-	Rs.68,938/-	Rs.1,22,250/-
11.	TOTAL	Rs.72,672/-	Rs.68,938/-	Rs.1,22,250/-

The Tribunal awarded an interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the total compensation.

7. Being aggrieved by the common award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants filed M.A. Nos. 2575 of 2010, 2574 of 2010 and 2579 of 2010 bef

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 664

IMPORTANT POINTQuantification of damages—A child’s notional income cannot be ascertained as per figure given for non-earning individuals.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
Quantification of damages—A child’s notional income cannot be ascertained as per figure given for non-earning individuals.