KURVAN ANSARI ALIAS KURVAN ALI & ANR. versus SHYAM KISHORE MURMU & ANR. on 16 November 2021

1. Leave Granted.

2. This Civil Appeal is preferred by the appellants - claimants inBM.A. No.66 of 2011, preferred before the High Court of Jharkhand atRanchi, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.08.2018.

3. Necessary facts, in brief, for disposal of this Appeal are that on06.09.2004, while the son of the appellants - claimants viz., Ibran Ali, aboy aged about 7 (seven) years studying in Class-II, was standing by theCside of the road in front of his maternal grandparents’ house, a motorcyclehas dashed him causing grievous injuries resulting in his death. The saidvehicle was driven by one Mr. Sunil Gurum and owned by respondentNo. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2.

4. On account of the said accident which resulted the death of theDchild of the claimants, they filed a Claim Petition under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation. Before the MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal, it was the case of the claimants that theaccident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver ofthe offending motorcycle; the deceased boy was aged about 7 years atthe time of accident and he was studying in Class-II. The Tribunal byEappreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, has come to theconclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent drivingof the motorcycle’s driver viz., Sunil Gurum. The Tribunal, consideringnotional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum, by applyingmultiplier ‘15’, awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest @6%Fper annum from the date of judgment. Since the driver of the offendingmotorcycle Mr. Sunil Gurum was not possessing valid driving licence atthe time of accident, the Tribunal directed respondent No. 2 -InsuranceCompany to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover thesame from its owner.

5. Pleading contributory negligence, the insurance company hadGpreferred M.A. No. 115 of 2011, for enhancement of compensation, theclaimants have preferred M.A. No. 66 of 2011, before the High Courtof Jharkhand at Ranchi.

6. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed theappeal preferred by the Insurance Company and partly allowed the appealH

preferred by the claimants by awarding a further sum of Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses. Thus, it is held that the appellants are entitledto a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards compensation with interest as awardedby the Tribunal from the date of filing Claim Petition.

7. We have heard Sri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants,and Sri V.S. Chopra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - InsuranceCompany.

8. Sri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants, mainlycontended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as confirmedby the High Court is on lower side and is not just and fair. The learnedcounsel has contended that the compensation was awarded by assumingincome of the deceased notionally at Rs.15,000/- per annum as perSchedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is applicable to theclaims made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It issubmitted that the notional income of Rs.15,000/- was fixed as early asin the year 1994 and somehow, the same is continued in the statutewithout any amendment in spite of repeated directions by this Court. Itis submitted that in view of the provision under Section 163-A(3) of theMotor Vehicles Act 1988, though it was obligatory on the part of theGovernment to amend Schedule–II, same as fixed in the year 1994,continued since then. Thus, it is submitted that the notional income asfixed, is to be considered by taking into account increase in the cost ofliving. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellantshas relied on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Puttamma &Ors. v. K.L. Narayana Reddy & Anr.[1], R.K. Malik & Anr. v. KiranPal & Ors.[2] and Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & Ors.[3].

9. On the other hand, Sri V.S. Chopra, learned counsel forrespondent No.2 - Insurance Company, has submitted that there are nogrounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court andplaced reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of RajendraSingh & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors.[4].

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we haveperused the impugned judgment and the other material placed on record.

1 (2013) 15 SCC 45

2 (2009) 14 SCC 1

3 (2014) 1 SCC 244

4 (2020) 7 SCC 256

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A11. As the claim was made under Section 163-A of the MotorVehicles Act 1988, since the deceased child was not an earning member,the Tribunal has considered notional income as per Schedule–II for thepurpose of fixing compensation. The Tribunal has awarded compensationby taking notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum byapplying multiplier ‘15’, awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- towardsBloss of dependency with interest @ 6% per annum from the date ofjudgment. When the appeals are preferred by the Insurance Companyas well as the appellants herein, by the impugned common judgment, theHigh Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company,and in the appeal preferred by the claimants, while confirming theCcompensation awarded for loss of dependency at Rs.2,25,000/-, hasawarded a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses andaccordingly granted a total compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest@6% per annum payable by respondent No. 2 - Insurance Companyand by permitting it to recover the same from Respondent No. 1 - ownerof the motorcycle.D

12. In the judgment in the case of Puttamma & Ors.[1], this Courthas observed that the Central Government was bestowed with the dutiesto amend Schedule-II in view of Section 163-A(3) of the Motor VehiclesAct 1988, but it failed to do so. In view of the same, specific directionswere issued to the Central Government to make appropriate amendmentsEto Schedule-II keeping in mind the present cost of living. In the saidjudgment, till such amendments are made, directions were issued foraward of compensation by fixing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees onelakh only) towards compensation for the non-earning children up to theage of 5 (five) years old and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh

Ffifty thousand only) for the non-earning persons of more than 5 (five)years old.

13. In the case of R.K. Malik & Anr.[2] also, this Court hasobserved that the notional income fixed under Section 163-A of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 as Rs.15,000/- per annum should be enhanced andGincreased as the same continued to exist without any amendment since14.11.1994. In the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr.[3] where the deceasedwas a ten years old child, this Court has fixed his notional income atRs.30,000/- per annum.

14. In this case, it is to be noted that the accident was onH06.09.2004. In spite of repeated directions, Schedule-II is not yet amended. Therefore, fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annumfor non-earning members is not just and reasonable.

15. In view of the judgments in the cases in Puttamma & Ors.[1],R.K. Malik & Anr.[2] and Kishan Gopal & Anr.[3], we are of the viewthat it is a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into accountthe inflation, devaluation of the rupee and cost of living. In view of thesame, the judgment in the case of Rajendra Singh & Ors.[4] relied onby the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company wouldnot render any assistance to the case of the insurance company.

16. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to take notionalincome of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousandonly) per annum. Accordingly, when the notional income is multipliedwith applicable multiplier ‘15’, as prescribed in Schedule-II for the claimsunder Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, it comes toRs.3,75,000/- (Rs.25,000/- x Multiplier 15) towards loss of dependency.The appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towardsfilial consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, theappellants are entitled to the following amounts towards compensation:

------------------

17. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for a sum ofRs.4,70,000/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy thousand only) towards totalcompensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claimpetition till the date of realisation. The enhanced compensation shall beapportioned between the appellants as ordered by the Tribunal. The entirecompensation shall be paid to the appellants by respondent No. 2 -Insurance Company, and we keep it open to the Insurance Company torecover the same from respondent No. 1 - owner of the motorcycle byinitiating appropriate proceedings as the motorcycle was driven by the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

372SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Adriver who was not possessing valid driving licence on the date of theaccident.

18. Accordingly, this Civil Appeal is allowed partly with directionsas indicated above. No order as to costs.

B

Devika Gujral

Appeal partly allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H