Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 242 (JK)

New India Assurance Co. v. Farooq Ahmad

2014-06-10

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2014
1. By medium of this appeal award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, dated 05.05.2011 is assailed. 2. Death of one Tabish Lateef at the age of 7 years on 24th March, 2007 at Jamalatta Chowk, Srinagar, in a road accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.JK01C-3446(TATA 407) gave rise to the filing of claim petition which has been allowed and the amount of compensation has been worked out as Rs.3.75,000. Dissatisfied therewith, insurer has filed the instant appeal projecting therein that in case of death of a child in the age group of more than five years, fixed compensation of Rs.1.50,000 is awardable whereas the learned Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased child at Rs.15000/ per annum, then has applied the multiplier of 15 and dependency value has been worked out as Rs.2,25000, which is incorrect. However, Rs.75,000 for future prospectus and Rs.75,000 as non-pecuniary damages is not opposed being in consonance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred in the award. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 6 (claimants), Mr. Parray, firstly resisted and claimed that the dependency value and the multiplier has been rightly applied but when confronted with para 56 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Puttamma & Ors v. K. L. Narayana Reddy & Anr. decided on 9th December, 2013, rendered in Civil Appeal No.10918 of 2013, learned counsel agreed that the dependency value as worked out is not correct. Para 56 of the said judgment is relevant to be quoted: 56. The Central Government was bestowed with duties to amend the Second Schedule in view of Section 163-A(3), but it failed to do so for 19 years in spite of repeated observations of this Court. For the reasons recorded above, we deem it proper to issue specific direction to the Central Government through the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways to make the proper amendments to the Second Schedule table keeping in view the present cost of living, subject to amendment of Second Schedule as proposed or may be made by the Parliament. Accordingly, we direct the Central Government to do so immediately. Accordingly, we direct the Central Government to do so immediately. Till such amendment is made by the Central Government in exercise of power vested under sub-section (3) of Section 163A of Act, 1988 or amendment is made by the Parliament, we hold and direct that for children upto the age of 5 years shall be entitled for fixed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh) and persons more than 5 years of age shall be entitled for fixed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees one lakh and fifty thousand) or the amount may be determined in terms of Second Schedule whichever is higher. Such amount is to be paid if any application is filed under Section 163A of the Act, 1988." 4. As per the law laid down, in case of death of a child in road accident of the age group of more than five years of age, fixed compensation of Rs.1,50,000 is awardable, therefore, loss of dependency value as worked out to be Rs.2,25,000 is reduced to Rs.1,50,000. 5. With the consensus of learned counsel for the parties, the amount of compensation is settled as under: Loss of dependency value=1,50,000 Future prospectus =75,000 Non-pecuniary damages =75,000 Total =3,00,000 The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @6% from the date of institution of the claim petition till final realization. 6. Report of the Registry would suggest that Rs.3,69,112 have been deposited. The awarded amount along with interest shall be worked out and released in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the award. Surplus amount out of the deposited amount, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant-insurance company. 7. Disposed of as above.