MEENA DEVI versus NUNU CHAND MAHTO @ NEMCHAND MAHTO & ORS on 13 October 2022

MEENA DEVI

v.

NUNU CHAND MAHTO @ NEMCHAND MAHTO & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 7255 of 2022)

OCTOBER 13, 2022

[SANJIV KHANNA AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:ss. 140, 166 rw s.171 –Compensation – Enhancement of – Death of 12 year old boy in amotor accident – Tribunal awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,00,000/- upto the value of the claim petition – On appeal, held: Less valuation,if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to awardjust compensation exceeding the claimed amount – Tribunal/courtought to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the factsrelying upon the evidence produced on record – On facts, theamount of compensation not just and reasonable looking to thecomputation made – As per the ocular statement of the mother ofthe deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student, studyingin a private school, thus, accepting the notional earning as Rs.30,000/- including future prospect and applying the multiplier of15, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and adding Rs.50,000/- in conventional heads, the total sum of compensation wouldbe Rs. 5,00,000/- – Thus, the compensation as awarded by the HighCourt enhanced by Rs. 3,00,000/-, in addition.

Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others (2014)1 SCC 244 : [2013] 10 SCR 793 – relied on.

R.K. Malik and another vs. Kiran Pal and others (2009)14 SCC 1 : [2009] 10 SCR 87; Sarla Verma & Othersvs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098; Lata Wadhwa andothers vs. State of Bihar and others (2001) 8 SCC 197: [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 578; M.S. Grewal & another vs.Deep Chand Sood & others (2001) 8 SCC 151 : [2001]2 Suppl. SCR 156; Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali &another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another (2022)

449

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A1 SCC 317; Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and others(2003) 2 SCC 274 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 499 – referredto.

Taff Vale Rly. Vs. Jankins 1913 AC 1 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

DCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7255of 2022.From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.2018 of the High Courtof Jharkhand at Ranchi in M.A. No. 16 of 2013.

D. P. Chaturvedi, Anuj Verma, Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Advs. forEthe Appellant.

Anup Kumar, Ms. Shruti Singh, Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, Advs.for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FJ. K. MAHESHWARI, J.

Leave granted.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of the present case are thatthe child, namely; Bankee Bihari, aged about 12 years on the date ofaccident i.e. 29.7.2003, while playing in front of his house, was dashedGby the Commander Jeep bearing registration No. JH-11A 6894 anddied on the way, while being taken to a hospital in Dhanbad. A ClaimPetition under Sections 140, 166 read with Section 171 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the M.V. Act”) seeking compensationto the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest was filed by the appellant,who is the mother of the deceased child.H

3. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih (for short, “M.A.C.T.”)granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lump sum. Onassailing the inadequacy of such an award by filing Miscellaneous AppealNo. 16 of 2013, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi enhanced theamount of compensation to Rs. 2,00,000/- equivalent to the value of theclaim made in the Claim Petition.

4. The adequacy of grant of such compensation has beenquestioned by filing the present appeal, inter alia, contending that theHigh Court erred in assessing the amount in the heads of “pecuniary”and “non-pecuniary” loss. MACT and the High Court have not grantedany amount under the head “loss of prospective happiness” and otherconventional heads and the amount as granted under the head of loss ofdependency is inadequate. Therefore, the compensation may beenhanced. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in R.K. Malikand another vs. Kiran Pal and others (2009)14 SCC 1, it is urged thatthe High Court committed error in assessing the less quantum for notionalincome of the deceased without adding ‘future prospect’ while computingthe compensation. Reliance has further been placed on the judgment ofthis Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala andothers (2014) 1 SCC 244 wherein the compensation has been calculatedtreating Rs. 30,000/- as notional income including future prospects inplace of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the II[nd ]Schedule of the M.V. Actand applying the multiplier as specified in the judgment of Sarla Verma &Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC.121. It is further contended that in case of death, just and reasonableamount of compensation ought to be awarded along with interest aspermissible. It is urged that the valuation of the claim is immaterial to grantjust and reasonable compensation, however the High Court committederror restricting the compensation equal to valuation of Claim Petition.

5. Mr. Anup Kumar and Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, Advocates havefiled vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Noone appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, though notice wasserved on them.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondent Nos. 1 and 2 urged that the compensation as awarded by theMACT and High Court is just and proper, however supporting the findings,as recorded by the two Courts, contended that the appeal deserves to bedismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal ofthe findings, the liability of the Insurance Company is not in dispute andonly the quantum is questioned by the claimant. Therefore, on the pointof liability of respondent No. 4-Insurance Company, we approve thefinding of the High Court.B8. Reverting to computation of compensation in the facts of thiscase, a child died in a road accident at the age of 12 years while playingin front of his house. He was studying in 5[th ]class in Nehru Academy,Giridih Road, Jamtara, Dumri, however it is required to be seen how thecomputation of compensation may be made. As per the ocular statementgiven by her mother, it is clear that the deceased child was a brilliantCstudent of Class 5 and if he had not met with the accident, he wouldhave definitely become an officer in future. In the said factual matrix,the compensation is required to be determined.

A

A

9. In the judgment of R.K. Malik (supra), 29 children going in aschool bus died by drowning in Yamuna River while the offending vehicleDfell down, breaking the railings of the bridge in a road accident, tookplace in November, 1997. In the said case this Court held that the principlefor determination of the compensation may be observed applying theII[nd ]Schedule of M.V. Act and the appropriate multiplier considering theage of parents. It has also been said that the claim with regard to theEfuture prospects should have been addressed by the Courts based onthe performance and the reputation of the school. In the said case, theprinciples laid down by this Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa andothers vs. State of Bihar and others (2001)8 SCC 197 and M.S. Grewal& another vs. Deep Chand Sood & others (2001)8 SCC 151 havebeen followed and enhancement was made. In the case of Lata WadhwaF(supra), it was clarified that the compensation may be awarded dividingthe children in the age groups of 5 to 10 and 10 to 15 years. It is held thatsuch grant of compensation will not necessarily bar the parents to claimprospective loss and it will be valid. This Court also relied upon theprinciples as laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case ofGTaff Vale Rly. Vs. Jankins 1913 AC 1, wherein Lord Atkinson observedas thus:

“…all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniarybenefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quitetrue that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact –there must be a basis of fact from which the inference canH

reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissentfrom the proposition that it is necessary that two of the factswithout which the inference cannot be drawn are, first, that thedeceased earned money in the past and, second, that he or shecontributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt,pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence;and the necessary inference can, I think, be drawn fromcircumstances other than and different from them.”

10. Thus relying upon the observation, it is said that in place ofissuing any guidelines for determination of compensation in case ofdeath of a child, it may be left open to be decided in the facts andcircumstances of each case. In the case of M.S. Grewal (supra), 14school students died due to drowning in a river. This Court noticingthat the students were belonging to upper middle class background,however awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.Thereafter in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), a child aged about 10years died in a road accident took place on 19.7.1992, this Court madedeparture from the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act and accepted the notionalincome of Rs. 30,000/- in place of Rs. 15,000/- applying the analogythat the value of rupee has come down drastically since 1994 whenthe notional income of Rs. 15000/- was fixed in IInd Schedule of theMV Act. However accepting the notional income as Rs. 30,000/- andas per the age of the parents i.e. 36 years, the loss of dependency wascalculated applying the multiplier of 15 at Rs. 4,50,000/- and a sum ofRs. 50,000/- was awarded under conventional heads awarding a totalsum of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

11. Recently in the case of Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali &another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another (2022) 1 SCC 317,wherein a child aged about 7 years died in a road accident took place on6.9.2004, this Court taking notional income as Rs. 25,000/-, applying themultiplier of 15, calculated the loss of dependency as Rs. 3,75,000/- andadding Rs. 55,000/- in conventional heads, awarded Rs. 4,70,000/-.

12. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in thecases of child death, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as specified inthe II[nd ]Schedule of M.V. Act has been enhanced on account ofdevaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date onwhich the II[nd ]Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notionalincome was treated as Rs. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra)

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aand Rs. 25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari (supra) in age group of 10 and 7years respectively.

13. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to theage of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid downin the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) are aptly applicable to the facts ofBthe present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of thedeceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and studying ina private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs. 30,000/-including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of thedecision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the loss of dependencycomes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and if we add Rs. 50,000/- in conventional heads,Cthen the total sum of compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/-. As per thejudgment of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has beenawarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,00,000/- up to thevalue of the Claim Petition. In our view, the said amount of compensationis not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove.DHence, we determine the total compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and onreducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-,the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-.

14. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decisionof a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdayal SinghEand others (2003) 2 SCC 274, it was observed that under the MV Act,there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensationexceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon theevidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made inthe Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensationFexceeding the claimed amount.

15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation,as awarded by the High Court is enhanced by Rs. 3,00,000/-, in addition.The total amount of compensation would be Rs. 5,00,000/-. The enhancedamount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of Claim Petition tillGrealization. The due amount be paid by the respondent No. 4 – UnitedIndia Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from today.

16. The parties to bear their own costs.

H

Nidhi Jain