insurance company and Sri. Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-claim petitioners.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance
3. Appellant herein is the respondent No.3/insurance company,
Tribunal. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as
they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:
about 10.15 a.m. The Police, Mulugu Police Station registered a
5. The claim petitioners i.e., the parents of the deceased filed
the date of realization.
6. The claimants averred that the deceased was aged about 5
and suffered mental agony and lost love and affection.
7. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of
the crime vehicle, remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The
8. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
1) Whether the accident occurred on 26.06.2019 at about 7.45
hours at main road, Mallampally village of Mulugu Mandal and
district, due to alleged rash and negligent driving of the driver of
Sri Vivekananda High School Bus bearing No.AP-15-B-7787
resulting in death of Chidara Akshara ?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as
claimed for? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
9. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claim
petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were
marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent-insurance company, none
were examined, however, certified copy of insurance policy was
marked as Ex.B1.
10. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the material and
evidence placed on record, has come to conclusion that the
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime
vehicle by its driver and awarded a sum of Rs.8,47,100/- towards
compensation with costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of
the petition till the date of realization, payable by the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondent No.3-insurance
company was directed to deposit the said compensation amount
within two months from the date of award, however, observed that
respondent No.3 is entitled to recover the same from the
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
11. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned Standing
Counsel for insurance company submitted that Tribunal has failed
to consider that the deceased was a minor, aged 5 years, and non-
earning member and thus, erroneously has taken the notional
income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum and further,
added future prospects of 40% of the said income and awarded
compensation which is exorbitant and finally, prayed to allow the
appeal by modifying the award passed by the Tribunal. In support
of his contention, learned Standing Counsel for appellant placed
reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Meena Devi Vs.
Nunu Chand Mahto alias Nemchand Mahto and others 1.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claim
petitioners submitted that on due consideration of the evidence and
material placed on record, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the just
compensation and in this Appeal, no grounds are made out to
interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and prayed the
Court to dismiss the appeal. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 placed reliance on the following
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(2023) 1 SCC 204
i) N.Jayasree and others v. Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company Limited 2;
ii) Divya v. National Insurance Co.Ltd and another 3;
iii) Judgment of Supreme Court in Atul Tiwari v. Regional
Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited 4
Consideration :
13. It is not in dispute that the deceased-Akshara died in a fatal
road accident that occurred on 26.06.2019 at the young age of 5
years while she was playing in front of her house, due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.
14. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for
appellant is that Tribunal erred in awarding compensation without
appreciating the fact that the deceased is a non-earning member
since she was aged only 5 years at the time of the accident. He
further contended that the Tribunal erred in directing the
respondent No.3-insurance company to pay the compensation
amount first and then recover the same from the respondent Nos.1
and 2, as there is clear violation on the part of the respondent No.2
in entrusting the vehicle to the respondent No.1, who had no
(2022) 14 SCC 712
2022 LawSuit (SC) 1264
driving licence as on the date of the accident and as such, the
same needs to be modified.
15. Perusal of the record, particularly Ex.A1-CC of FIR, Ex.A4-
CC of charge sheet and Ex.8-Study, Conduct and Date of Birth
Certificate of the deceased goes to show that the deceased was
aged 5 years as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal
considering the oral and documentary evidence and also various
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned
counsel for claimants before it, had awarded total compensation of
Rs.8,47,100/-, which includes conventional heads i.e., loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
16. In Meena Devi's case (supra) relied upon by the learned
counsel for appellant, the Hon'ble Apex Court, by referring to the
various decisions, held as under:
"13. Thereafter in Kishan Gopal [KishanGopal v. Lala, (2014) 1
SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] , a
child aged about 10 years died in a road accident took place on
19-7-1992, this Court made departure from the II Schedule of the
MV 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 when the notional income of Rs
15,000 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.
14. Recently in Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu [Kurvan
Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 : (2022) 1 SCC
(Civ) 365 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , 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.
15. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases
of child death, the notional income of Rs 15,000 as specified in the
IInd Schedule of the MV Act has been enhanced on account of
devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date
on which the IInd Schedule of the MV Act was introduced and the
said notional income was treated as Rs 30,000 in Kishan Gopal
[Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] and Rs 25,000 in Kurvan Ansari [Kurvan
Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 : (2022) 1 SCC
(Civ) 365 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] in age group of 10 and 7 years
respectively.
16. 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 Kishan Gopal [Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1
SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] 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 the 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 SarlaVerma
[SarlaVerma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002], 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 5,00,000. ......."
17. In considered opinion of this Court, the issue involved and
facts and circumstances of above case are similar to that of
present case and therefore, the above decision squarely applies to
the present case.
18. With regard to decision relied upon by learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 in N.Jayasree's case (supra), the issue
adjudicated and facts in the said case are different with that of
present case and as such, the same has no application. Insofar as
the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Divya's case (supra)
and Atul Tiwari's case (supra), which are relied upon by the
learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, are concerned, the
issue involved in those cases relates to the disability and therefore,
they are not applicable to the present case.
19. Thus, considering the age of the child in the present case i.e.
5 years, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Kishan Gopal v. Lala, [(2014) 1 SCC 244] are aptly applicable to
the facts of the present case. Therefore, in considered view of this
Court, the notional income of the deceased, who is non-earning
member, can be taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum which includes
future prospects in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Meena Devi's case (supra). Accordingly, this Court holds that the
Tribunal erred in adding 40% of the notional income of the
deceased towards future prospects.
20. Taking into account the age of the deceased as 5 years at the
time of the accident, as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another 5, the appropriate multiplier would be '15'. Thus, the loss
of dependency comes to Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 15) and if a
sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under conventional heads, total
compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/-.
21. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, respondent Nos.1
and 2/claimants are entitled to the following amounts:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Income including future Rs.30,000/- p.a.
prospects
3 Loss of dependency (Rs.4,50,000/-
(Rs.30,000/- x 15)
4 Conventional heads Rs. 50,000/-
Total compensation awarded: Rs.5,00,000/-
22. Accordingly, this Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
Award passed by the Tribunal is modified, reducing the
compensation from Rs.8,47,100/- to Rs.5,00,000/- with interest
(2009) 6 SCC 121
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date
of realization. The appellant-insurance company herein is directed
to deposit the said compensation amount i.e., Rs.5,00,000/-
together with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order, and however, the appellant-
insurance company is entitled to recover the compensation amount
from respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein. On such deposit, respondent
Nos.1 and 2 herein are entitled to withdraw the entire
compensation amount as per the apportionment determined by the
Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________________
[[
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date:09.06.2025
Kkm
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1575 OF 2024
Date: 09.06.2025
kkm
