Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 409 (RAJ)

Manju Devi v. Shankar Singh

2014-02-07

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - Having lost a child of seven years in a vehicular accident, the appellants had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. By award dated 20.5.2013, the learned Tribunal had granted an award of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the appellants. However, the appellants have filed the present appeal for enhancement. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.10.2011, Deepak ('the deceased' for short), was standing with his elder brother on the correct side of the road outside his house. Around 4.00 PM a mini bus, bearing registration No.RJ14-PA-4410, being driven rashly and negligently, came and hit both the children. Both the children sustained grievous injuries. But by the time Deepak was rushed to the hospital, he had expired. Therefore, the appellants filed a claim petition for Rs. 20,60,000/-. In order to buttress their case, they examined a single witness, namely, Anandi Lal, appellant No.2, the father of the deceased, and submitted certain documents. After going through the oral and the documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. Vinay Mathur, the learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that in the case of Kishan Gopal and Another v. Lala and Others, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : 2013 (3) DNJ (SC) 718 , the Apex Court had also dealt with a case of death of a ten years old child, namely, Tikaram. The Apex Court was of the opinion that even in the case of death of a child, the learned Tribunal must take his notional income into account while assessing the loss of dependency of the parents. Moreover, instead of taking the notional income as Rs. 15,000/-, the Apex Court had taken the notional income as Rs. 30,000/- considering the fact that the value of rupee has been declining over the years. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the notional income, and in giving a lump sum amount to the appellants. 4. On the other hand, Mr. 15,000/-, the Apex Court had taken the notional income as Rs. 30,000/- considering the fact that the value of rupee has been declining over the years. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the notional income, and in giving a lump sum amount to the appellants. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ram Singh Bhati, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has relied on the case of Nana Devi (Smt.) & Others v. Gurumel Singh & Others, MACD 2012(1) (Raj.) 286 , and has contended that in the said case, this Court had established the principle that in case the age of the child was less than five years, the parents would be entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/-, in case the age of the child was between 5 to 10 years, the parents would be entitled to Rs. 2,00,000/-, and in case the age of the child was between 10-15 years, the parents would be entitled to Rs. 2,50,000/-. Therefore, according to him, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in granting a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Hence, he has supported the impugned award. 5. Heard the learned counsel, perused the case law cited at the Bar, and considered the impugned award. 6. The case of Kishan Gopal and Another (supra), dealt with the death of a ten years old child. Initially, the learned Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition and the impugned award of the Tribunal was confirmed by this High Court. However, while setting aside the finding of both the Tribunal and this High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court went into the issue as to the loss of dependency of the parents. Relying on the case of Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 197 , the Apex Court noted that even in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had opined that a compensation shall be awarded taking the contribution of the children to the family as Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Taking this as their notional income, the multiplier of the parent's age should be applied. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that in accordance with the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the notional income should be taken as Rs. 15,000/-. 12,000/- per annum. Taking this as their notional income, the multiplier of the parent's age should be applied. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that in accordance with the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the notional income should be taken as Rs. 15,000/-. But considering the fact that rupee has devalued since 1994, the Apex Court further opined that in case of a child the notional income should be taken as Rs. 30,000/-. The said amount has to be multiplied with the multiplier depending on the age of the mother. Applying the said formula, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted a compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/-, and further granted a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under the conventional heads of loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and last rites. 7. In the present case the appellant No.1, the mother was 30 years old when she lost her seven years old child. According to the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 (2) DNJ (SC) 684 , a multiplier of 17 is applicable to a person aged 30 years. Therefore, multiplying Rs. 30,000 with 17 one gets, Rs. 5,10,000/-. Plus Rs. 50,000/-, under the conventional heads i.e. Rs. 5,60,000/-. Hence the amount is enhanced to 5,60,000 - 2,00,000 = Rs. 3,60,000/-. 8. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal. 9. The appeal is hereby allowed.Appeal allowed. *******