Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Hari Lal & Ors on 22 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 22nd March, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 17/2011
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv.
versus
HARI LAL & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv. for
R-1 & R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `3,90,000/-
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims
Tribunal) for the death of Neeraj, a minor aged about 16 years
at the time of the accident which occurred on 02.06.2007.
2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance
Company that the deduction of one-third of the notional income
of `15,000/- ought to have been made while determining the
loss of dependency.
3. The contention is without any substance as no such deduction
was made in the case of Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan, VII
(2005) SLT 257, and Sobhagya Devi & Ors. v. Sukhvir Singh &
Ors., II (2006) ACC 1997.
4. The case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in
National Insurance Company Limited v. Farzana & Ors., 2009
ACJ 2763, where after considering the judgments of the
Supreme Court, a compensation of `3,75,000/- was awarded. I
extract para 4 to 8 of the judgment as under:-
"4. In the case of Manju Devi Vs. Musafir Paswan, VII
(2005) SLT 257, the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded
compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- in respect of death of a
13-years old boy by applying the multiplier of 15 and
taking the notional income of Rs.15,000/- as per the
Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant
portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age, a
multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per
the Second Schedule, he being a non-earning
person, a sum of Rs.15,000/- must be taken as the
income. Thus, the compensation comes to
Rs.2,25,000/-
5. The case of Sobhagya Devi & Ors. Vs. Sukhvir Singh
& Ors., II (2006) ACC 1997 relates to the death of a 12-
year old boy. Following the decision of the Apex Court in
Manju Devi's case (supra), the Rajasthan High Court
awarded Rs.2,25,000/- by applying the Second Schedule
of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. The case of Syam Narayan Vs. Kitty Tours & Travels,
2006 ACJ 320 relates to the death of a child aged 5
years. This Court relying on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Manju Devi's case (supra) awarded
compensation to the parents by applying the notional
income of Rs.15,000/- and multiplier of 15 as per the
Second Schedule and further awarded Rs.50,000/- for
loss of company of the child as also pain and suffering by
them. The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced hereunder:-
"3. By and under the award dated 5.12.2003, a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded to the
appellants. While awarding sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
to appellants, learned M.A.C.T. has held that the
income of the deceased child was incapable of
assessment or estimation. Recognising that every
parent has a reasonable expectation of financial
and moral support from his child, in the absence of
any evidence led, learned M.A.C.T. opined that the
interest of justice requires that appellants are
compensated with the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.
4. Had the Tribunal peeped into the Second
Schedule, as per section 163-A of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, it would have dawned on the Tribunal
that vide serial No.6, notional income for
compensation in case of fatal accidents has been
stipulated at Rs.15,000/- per annum.
5. In the decision reported as Manju Devi V.
Musafir Paswan, 2005 ACJ 99 (SC), dealing with
the accidental death of 13 years old boy, while
awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, Apex Court took into account the
notional income stipulated in the Second Schedule
being Rs.15,000/- per annum.
6. In the instant case, baby Chanda was aged 5
years. Age of the appellants as on date of accident
was 28 years and 26 years respectively as
recorded in the impugned award. Applying a
multiplier of 15 as set out in Second Schedule
which refers to the said multiplier, where age of
the victim is upto 15 years, compensation
determinable comes to Rs.15,000 x 15 =
Rs.2,25,000/-.
7. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/-
towards loss of expectation of financial and moral
support as also loss of company of the child,
mental agony, etc. I have found that the parents
are entitled to compensation in the sum of
Rs.2,25,000/- on account of loss of financial
support from the deceased child. I award a sum of
Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of company of the
child as also pain and suffering suffered by them
as a result of the untimely death of baby Chanda.
Appeal accordingly stands disposed of enhancing
the compensation to Rs.2,75,000/-.
7. In the case of R.K. Malik vs. Kiran Pal, III (2006) ACC
261, 22 children died in an accident of a school bus
which fell in river Yamuna. This Court held the Second
Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act to be the appropriate
method for computing the compensation. With respect to
the non-pecuniary damages, the Court observed that loss
of dependency of life and pain and suffering on that
account, generally speaking is same and uniform to all
regardless of status unless there is a specific case made
out for deviation. This Court awarded Rs.75,000/-
towards non-pecuniary compensation.
8. The aforesaid judgment of this Court was challenged
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and which has been
decided recently on 15th May, 2009 and is reported as
R.K. Malik vs. Kiran Pal, 2009(8) Scale 451. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the claimants are also
entitled to compensation towards future prospects. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the claimants are
entitled to compensate towards future prospects and
granted further compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards
future prospects of the children......"
5. Since the deceased was above 15 years, the multiplier of '16'
was selected by the Claims Tribunal instead of '15', which is in
case of a minor aged less than 15 years.
6. The overall compensation of `3,90,000/- awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is in consonance with the principles laid down in the
reports of the Supreme Court mentioned hereinabove and in
Farzana (supra) of this Court.
7. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly
dismissed.
8. Statutory amount be refunded to the Appellant Insurance
Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 22, 2012
vk
