Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 503 (JK)

Abdul Rahim v. National Insurance Company Ltd

2020-09-24

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT The parents of the deceased Abdul Waheed [‘claimants’] who lost his life in a motor vehicle accident, that took place on 15.03.2004 at village Batroo due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, are in appeal against the award dated 08.11.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramban in file No.10/C, whereby a total compensation of Rs.2.05 lac along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum has been awarded. The appellants seek enhancement of the compensation on the grounds set out in the memo of appeal. 2. Respondent No.1, who is represented by Mr. C.S.Gupta, learned counsel, alone has come forward to contest this appeal. 3. Since the instant appeal is only for enhancement of compensation, as such, the reference to the detailed facts of the case is obviated. The appellants have sought enhancement of compensation, inter alia, on the following grounds: (i) That the Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the legal position i.e, assessment of compensation in case of death of a minor child. Relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lata Wadhwa and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 2001 (8) SCCC 197, it is contended that, for the death of the child between the age group of 10-15 years, a sum of Rs.4.10 lac was held to be fair and just compensation. (ii) That the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the deceased was a student, aged 16 years having good future prospects and awarded compensation which, by no stretch of reasoning, can be held to be just and fair. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The law with regard to payment of compensation in the case of death of minor having no source of income is not free from ambiguity. 6. The Courts have dealt with the issue from time to time in the light of facts and circumstances of each case. In some of the judgments, the compensation has been computed by reference to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the earlier judgments, the notional income of the deceased in such like matters was taken to be Rs.15,000/- per annum and the compensation was computed by deduction to the extent of 1/3rd and applying the multiplier given in the Second Schedule. In the earlier judgments, the notional income of the deceased in such like matters was taken to be Rs.15,000/- per annum and the compensation was computed by deduction to the extent of 1/3rd and applying the multiplier given in the Second Schedule. Since the Second Schedule was added to the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994 and no amendment as mandated by Section 163 A was made by the Government to bring it in conformity with the rising price index, as such, in such cases, particularly the cases in and around the year 2004, such income was taken to be Rs.30,000/- per annum. 7. In the instant case, the accident has occurred in the year 2004 and, therefore, it would be appropriate to take the notional income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum. This is so because the claimants have not been able to prove the income of the deceased by leading any cogent evidence. It was claimed by the claimants that the deceased besides being a student, was doing the agriculture work, but the said fact is not substantiated by any cogent or convincing evidence. In these circumstances, it would be safe to take the notional income of the deceased as Rs.30000/- per annum. 8. Going by the stipulation of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, there has to be deduction of 1/3rd of the income. In the result, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.20,000/- per annum. In the age group of 15-18, the multiplier, to be used as per Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121 is 18. Computed, thus, the loss of dependency would be as follows: Rs. 20000 × 18=Rs.3,60,000/- 9. Apart from the aforesaid sum, the claimants would be entitled to the following sums under the conventional heads on the analogy of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130. (i) Loss of estate Rs.15000/- (ii) Funeral expenses Rs.15000/- (iii) Loss of filial consortium @ 40000/- to appellant Nos. 1 and 2 Rs.80,000/- 10. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.4,70,000/-. 11. (i) Loss of estate Rs.15000/- (ii) Funeral expenses Rs.15000/- (iii) Loss of filial consortium @ 40000/- to appellant Nos. 1 and 2 Rs.80,000/- 10. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.4,70,000/-. 11. The instant appeal is, thus allowed, and the appellants/claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.4,70,000- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The interim compensation, if any, received by the claimants shall be adjusted in the awarded amount. Insurer to deposit the shortfall with the Registry of this Court within six weeks and the same, on its deposit, be released in favour of the appellants/claimants in equal shares on their proper identification and verification.