caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali vs Shyam Kishore Murmu on 16 November, 2021Author: R. Subhash Reddy
Bench: R. Subhash Reddy, Hrishikesh Roy
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6902 OF 2021
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.5311 of 2019)
Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali
& Anr. …Appellant(s)
versus
Shyam Kishore Murmu & Anr. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
R.SUBHASH REDDY,J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. This Civil Appeal is preferred by the appellants –
claimants in M.A. No.66 of 2011, preferred before the
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, aggrieved by the
judgment and order dated 03.08.2018.
3. Necessary facts, in brief, for disposal of this
Appeal are that on 06.09.2004, while the son of the
appellants
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
– claimants viz., Ibran Ali, a boy aged
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2021.11.16
17:43:28 IST
Reason:
about 7 (seven) years studying in Class-II, was
standing by the side of the road in front of his
maternal grandparents’ house, a motorcycle has dashed
him causing grievous injuries resulting in his death.
The said vehicle was driven by one Mr.Sunil Gurum and
owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent
No.2.
4. On account of the said accident which resulted the
death of the child of the claimants, they filed a Claim
Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 claiming compensation. Before the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, it was the case of the claimants that
the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending motorcycle; the
deceased boy was aged about 7 years at the time of
accident and he was studying in Class-II. The Tribunal
by appreciating oral and documentary evidence on
record, has come to the conclusion that the accident
has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
motorcycle’s driver viz., Sunil Gurum. The Tribunal,
considering notional income of the deceased at
Rs.15,000/- per annum, by applying multiplier ‘15’,
awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest @6%
2
per annum from the date of judgment. Since the driver
of the offending motorcycle Mr.Sunil Gurum was not
possessing valid driving licence at the time of
accident, the Tribunal directed respondent No.2
-Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the
claimants and recover the same from its owner.
5. Pleading contributory negligence, the insurance
company had preferred M.A. No.115 of 2011, for
enhancement of compensation, the claimants have
preferred M.A. No.66 of 2011, before the High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi.
6. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has
dismissed the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company
and partly allowed the appeal preferred by the
claimants by awarding a further sum of Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses. Thus, it is held that the
appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-
towards compensation with interest as awarded by the
Tribunal from the date of filing Claim Petition.
7. We have heard Sri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for
the appellants, and Sri V.S. Chopra, learned counsel
for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company.
3
8. Sri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants,
mainly contended that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal as confirmed by the High Court is on lower
side and is not just and fair. The learned counsel has
contended that the compensation was awarded by assuming
income of the deceased notionally at Rs.15,000/- per
annum as per Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 which is applicable to the claims made under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is
submitted that the notional income of Rs.15,000/- was
fixed as early as in the year 1994 and somehow, the
same is continued in the statute without any amendment
in spite of repeated directions by this Court. It is
submitted that in view of the provision under Section
163-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, though it was
obligatory on the part of the Government to amend
Schedule–II, same as fixed in the year 1994, continued
since then. Thus, it is submitted that the notional
income as fixed, is to be considered by taking into
account increase in the cost of living. In support of
his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants
has relied on the judgments of this Court in the cases
of Puttamma & Ors. v. K.L. Narayana Reddy & Anr. 1, R.K.
1
(2013) 15 SCC 45
4
Malik & Anr. v. Kiran Pal & Ors. 2 and Kishan Gopal &
Anr. v. Lala & Ors.3.
9. On the other hand, Sri V.S. Chopra, learned counsel
for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company, has submitted
that there are no grounds to interfere with the
impugned judgment of the High Court and placed reliance
on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra
Singh & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited &
Ors.4.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
we have perused the impugned judgment and the other
material placed on record.
11. As the claim was made under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, since the deceased child was
not an earning member, the Tribunal has considered
notional income as per Schedule–II for the purpose of
fixing compensation. The Tribunal has awarded
compensation by taking notional income of the deceased
at Rs.15,000/- per annum by applying multiplier ‘15’,
awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- towards loss of
dependency with interest @ 6% per annum from the date
2
(2009) 14 SCC 1
3
(2014) 1 SCC 244
4
(2020) 7 SCC 256
5
of judgment. When the appeals are preferred by the
Insurance Company as well as the appellants herein, by
the impugned common judgment, the High Court has
dismissed the appeal preferred by the Insurance
Company, and in the appeal preferred by the claimants,
while confirming the compensation awarded for loss of
dependency at Rs.2,25,000/-, has awarded a further sum
of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and accordingly
granted a total compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- with
interest @6% per annum payable by respondent No.2 –
Insurance Company and by permitting it to recover the
same from Respondent No.1 – owner of the motorcycle.
12. In the judgment in the case of Puttamma & Ors.1,
this Court has observed that the Central Government was
bestowed with the duties to amend Schedule-II in view
of Section 163-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, but
it failed to do so. In view of the same, specific
directions were issued to the Central Government to
make appropriate amendments to Schedule-II keeping in
mind the present cost of living. In the said judgment,
till such amendments are made, directions were issued
for award of compensation by fixing a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards
6
compensation for the non-earning children up to the age
of 5 (five) years old and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) for the non-
earning persons of more than 5 (five) years old.
13. In the case of R.K. Malik & Anr.2 also, this Court
has observed that the notional income fixed under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as
Rs.15,000/- per annum should be enhanced and increased
as the same continued to exist without any amendment
since 14.11.1994. In the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr.3
where the deceased was a ten years old child, this
Court has fixed his notional income at Rs.30,000/- per
annum.
14. In this case, it is to be noted that the accident
was on 06.09.2004. In spite of repeated directions,
Schedule-II is not yet amended. Therefore, fixing
notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum for non-
earning members is not just and reasonable.
15. In view of the judgments in the cases in Puttamma
& Ors.1, R.K. Malik & Anr.2 and Kishan Gopal & Anr.3, we
are of the view that it is a fit case to increase the
notional income by taking into account the inflation,
devaluation of the rupee and cost of living. In view of
7
the same, the judgment in the case of Rajendra Singh &
Ors.4 relied on by the learned counsel for respondent
No.2-Insurance Company would not render any assistance
to the case of the insurance company.
16. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to
take notional income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees twenty five thousand only) per annum.
Accordingly, when the notional income is multiplied
with applicable multiplier ‘15’, as prescribed in
Schedule-II for the claims under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, it comes to Rs.3,75,000/-
(Rs.25,000/- x Multiplier 15) towards loss of
dependency. The appellants are also entitled to a sum
of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium and
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the
appellants are entitled to the following amounts
towards compensation:(a) Loss of Dependency : Rs. 3,75,000-00
(b) Filial Consortium : Rs. 80,000-00
(Rs.40,000/- x 2)
(c) Funeral Expenses : Rs. 15,000-00
—————–
Total : Rs. 4,70,000-00
17. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for a sum
of Rs.4,70,000/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy thousand
8
only) towards total compensation with interest at 6%
per annum from the date of claim petition till the date
of realisation. The enhanced compensation shall be
apportioned between the appellants as ordered by the
Tribunal. The entire compensation shall be paid to the
appellants by respondent No.2 – Insurance Company, and
we keep it open to the Insurance Company to recover the
same from respondent No.1 – owner of the motorcycle by
initiating appropriate proceedings as the motorcycle
was driven by the driver who was not possessing valid
driving licence on the date of the accident.
18. Accordingly, this Civil Appeal is allowed partly
with directions as indicated above. No order as to
costs.
……………………………………………………J
(R. SUBHASH REDDY)
……………………………………………………J
(HRISHIKESH ROY)
NEW DELHI;
November 16, 2021
9
Comments