Full Judgment Text
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.5345 OF 2019)
MEENA DEVI …APPELLANT
Versus
NUNU CHAND MAHTO @ NEMCHAND MAHTO & ORS. …RESPONDENT(s)
J U D G M E N T
J.K. MAHESHWARI,J.
Leave granted.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of the present case are
that the child, namely; Bankee Bihari, aged about 12 years
on the date of accident i.e. 29.7.2003, while playing in front
of his house, was dashed by the Commander Jeep bearing
registration No. JH-11A 6894 and died on the way, while
being taken to a hospital in Dhanbad. A Claim Petition
under Sections 140, 166 read with Section 171 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the M.V. Act”) seeking
compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest was
Signature Not Verified
filed by the appellant, who is the mother of the deceased
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2022.10.13
14:37:18 IST
Reason:
child.
1
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. On assailing the inadequacy of
such an award by filing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 16 of 2013,
the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi enhanced the
amount of compensation to Rs. 2,00,000/- equivalent to the
value of the claim made in the Claim Petition.
4. The adequacy of grant of such compensation has
been questioned by filing the present appeal, inter alia,
contending that the High Court erred in assessing the
amount in the heads of “pecuniary” and “non-pecuniary”
loss. MACT and the High Court have not granted any
amount under the head “loss of prospective happiness” and
other conventional heads and the amount as granted under
the head of loss of dependency is inadequate. Therefore, the
compensation may be enhanced. Placing reliance on the
judgment of this Court in R.K. Malik and another vs.
Kiran Pal and others (2009)14 SCC 1, it is urged that the
High Court committed error in assessing the less quantum
for notional income of the deceased without adding ‘future
prospect’ while computing the compensation. Reliance has
2
further been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case
of Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others (2014)
1 SCC 244 wherein the compensation has been calculated
treating Rs. 30,000/- as notional income including future
nd
prospects in place of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the II
Schedule of the M.V. Act and 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
reasonable amount of compensation ought to be awarded
along with interest as permissible. It is urged that the
valuation of the claim is immaterial to grant just and
reasonable compensation, however the High Court
committed error restricting the compensation equal to
valuation of Claim Petition.
5. Mr. Anup Kumar and Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar,
Advocates have filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. No one appeared on behalf of
respondent Nos. 3 and 4, though notice was served on them.
6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 urged that the compensation as
3
awarded by the MACT and High Court is just and proper,
however supporting the findings, as recorded by the two
Courts, contended that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the findings, the liability of the Insurance
Company is not in dispute and only the quantum is
questioned by the claimant. Therefore, on the point of
liability of respondent No. 4-Insurance Company, we approve
the finding of the High Court.
8. Reverting to computation of compensation in the
facts of this case, a child died in a road accident at the age
of 12 years while playing in front of his house. He was
th
studying in 5 class in Nehru Academy, Giridih Road,
Jamtara, Dumri, however it is required to be seen how the
computation of compensation may be made. As per the
ocular statement given by her mother, it is clear that the
deceased child was a brilliant student of Class 5 and if he
had not met with the accident, he would have definitely
become an officer in future. In the said factual matrix, the
compensation is required to be determined.
4
9. In the judgment of R.K. Malik (supra), 29 children
going in a school bus died by drowning in Yamuna River
while the offending vehicle fell down, breaking the railings of
the bridge in a road accident, took place in November, 1997.
In the said case this Court held that the principle for
determination of the compensation may be observed
nd
applying the II Schedule of M.V. Act and the appropriate
multiplier considering the age of parents. It has also been
said that the claim with regard to the future prospects
should have been addressed by the Courts based on the
performance and the reputation of the school. In the said
case, the principles laid down by this Court in the case of
Lata Wadhwa and others vs. State of Bihar and others
(2001)8 SCC 197 and M.S. Grewal & another vs. Deep
Chand Sood & others (2001)8 SCC 151 have been followed
and enhancement was made. In the case of Lata Wadhwa
(supra), it was clarified that the compensation may be
awarded dividing the children in the age groups of 5 to 10
and 10 to 15 years. It is held that such grant of
compensation will not necessarily bar the parents to claim
prospective loss and it will be valid. This Court also relied
5
upon the principles as laid down by the House of Lords in
the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. Vs. Jankins 1913 AC 1 ,
wherein Lord Atkinson observed as thus:
“…all that is necessary is that a reasonable
expectation of pecuniary benefit should be
entertained by the person who sues. It is
quite true that the existence of this
expectation is an inference of fact – there
must be a basis of fact from which the
inference can reasonably be drawn; but I
wish to express my emphatic dissent from
the proposition that it is necessary that two
of the facts without which the inference
cannot be drawn are, first, that the
deceased earned money in the past and,
second, that he or she contributed 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
from circumstances other than and
different from them.”
10. Thus relying upon the observation, it is said that in
place of issuing any guidelines for determination of
compensation in case of death of a child, it may be left open
to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case.
In the case of M.S. Grewal ( supra), 14 school students died
due to drowning in a river. This Court noticing that the
students were belonging to upper middle class background,
however awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.
6
5,00,000/-. Thereafter in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra),
a child aged about 10 years died in a road accident took place
nd
on 19.7.1992, this Court made departure from the II
Schedule of M.V. Act and accepted the notional income of
Rs. 30,000/- in place of Rs. 15,000/- applying the analogy
that the value of rupee has come down drastically since 1994
nd
when the notional income of Rs. 15000/- was fixed in II
Schedule of the MV Act. However accepting the notional
income as Rs. 30,000/- and as per the age of the parents i.e.
36 years, the loss of dependency was calculated applying the
multiplier of 15 at Rs. 4,50,000/- and a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
was awarded under conventional heads awarding a total
sum 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 on 6.9.2004, this Court taking
notional income as Rs. 25,000/-, applying the multiplier of
15, calculated the loss of dependency as Rs. 3,75,000/- and
adding Rs. 55,000/- in conventional heads, awarded Rs.
4,70,000/-.
7
12. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that
in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs.
nd
15,000/- as specified in the II Schedule of M.V. Act has
been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and
nd
value of rupee coming down from the date on which the II
Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional
income was treated as Rs. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan
Gopal (supra) and Rs. 25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari (supra)
in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively.
13. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments,
looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12
years, the principles laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal
(supra) are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case.
As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it
is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and studying
in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning
Rs. 30,000/- including future prospect and applying the
multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla
Verma (supra), the loss of dependency comes to Rs.
4,50,000/- and if we add Rs. 50,000/- in conventional
heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs.
8
5,00,000/-. As per the judgment of MACT, lump sum
compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded, while the
High Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,00,000/- up to the value of
the Claim Petition. In our view, the said amount of
compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the
computation made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the
total compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and on reducing 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
decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa
vs. Gurdayal Singh and others (2003) 2 SCC 274, it was
observed that under the MV Act, there is no restriction that
the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding
the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award
‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying
upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less
valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be
impediment to award just compensation exceeding the
claimed amount.
9
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 enhanced
amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of Claim
Petition till realization. The due amount be paid by the
respondent No. 4 – United India Insurance Company within
a period of four weeks from today.
16. The parties to bear their own costs.
………….……………….J.
( SANJIV KHANNA )
……...……………………J.
( J.K. MAHESHWARI )
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 13, 2022.
10