High Court

Legal Reasoning

( 1 ) fa134.21IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD77 FIRST APPEAL NO. 134 OF 2021SAKHARAM JAGANNATH AVHAD AND ANRVERSUSRAJENDRA SAHEBRAO GHULE AND ANRMr.Umakant U. Wagh, Advocate for the appellants.Mr.Mohit Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2.CORAM: KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATED: 23.07.2024PC :-01.Heard learned Advocates for the parties. The appeal is taken upfor final disposal at the stage of admission by consent of the parties. Thoughthe record and proceedings is not received, the learned Advocates for theparties submit that they are ready to go on with the copies of the documentsproduced on record, since question involved is only of the quantum of thecompensation.02.Present appeal is arising out of judgment and order dated12.03.2020 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Ahmednagar, in MACP No.205 of 2016. The facts in short are that the son ofthe present appellants-original petitioners before the Tribunal, died in an ( 2 ) fa134.21accident. On 31.01.2016 at 04=00 p.m. deceased Shubham was proceedingfrom Pandharipool to Miri Road for purchase of grocery material. Whilecrossing the road, he met with an accident due to severe dash given by thevehicle bearing registration No. MH-14-DN-3216, which was driven in highand excessive speed. The deceased received grievous injuries and was shiftedto hospital for treatment. However, during the course of treatment, hesuccumbed to the injuries. The deceased was a child of 12 years age, takingeducation in 6th standard in Zilla Parishad School. The appellants filed claimpetition seeking compensation. The learned Tribunal on going through theevidence and other documents, allowed the petition and awarded totalcompensation of Rs.4,30,000/- including the amount of ‘no fault liability’along with interest @ 9% p.a. and Rs.30,000/- towards of loss of estate andfuneral expenses, from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Thelearned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs based on the judgmentin the case of Kishan Gopal and Anr. Vs. Lala and Others, (2014) 1 SCC 244.03.The learned Advocate for the appellants vehemently argued thatthe amount awarded is too meager. The amount is awarded on the basis ofIInd Schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. This Schedule was ( 3 ) fa134.21prepared in the year 1994, where the notional income of the child wasconsidered to be Rs.15,000/- per year only. In the present case the child diedin the year 2016. Considering this aspect, the learned Tribunal ought to haveawarded at least double the amount towards compensation, by takingpragmatic approach. In support of the submission, he relied upon judgmentsin case of (i) Ali and Anr. Vs. Abduljabbar and Anr., 2020 SCC OnLine Ker5539 (ii) Sannasi and Ors. Vs. Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2020SCC OnLine Ker 5543 and (iii) Kishan Gopal and Anr. Vs. Lala & Ors., (2014)1 SCC 244.04.The learned Advocate for the respondent-insurance companysubmits that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount ofcompensation. He submits that Schedule II though prepared in the year 1994,still that is in force as on today. There is no provision made in the Act givingdiscretion to the Tribunal to consider income of a child and it has no power toaward compensation more than the Schedule. He further submits that evenwhile amending the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 2019, the legislaturethought an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs fit to be awarded, which earlier used to beawarded under section 163-A and Schedule II of the Act. He further submits ( 4 ) fa134.21that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra)considered income of Rs. 30,000/- per annum instead of Rs.15,000/- perannum as given in IInd Schedule and awarded an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-considering annual income to be Rs.30,000/- x 15 multiplier. In that caseadditional amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid under conventional head towardsloss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc.05.He relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in thecase of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors.,(arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5345 of 2019). In that case also, the Hon’bleApex Court has granted Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation. He thussubmits that in that case the accident had taken place in the year 2003. He,thus, submits that in the year 2022 the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered anamount of Rs.5,00,000/- to be just compensation. He thus submits that in thepresent case, there is no scope to enhance the amount of compensation.06.This Court has also considered judgment in the case of Ali & Anr.(supra). In the said judgment the High Court of Kerla considered the cost ofinflation index right from 1995-96 prepared in the Income Tax Act. It is ( 5 ) fa134.21further discussed that when value of rupee is diminishing every year, rupee islosing its value and that factor should be considered while determining theamount of compensation. Similar view is taken in the case of Sannasi andOrs. (supra). This Court accepts that every year, Rupee is losing its value.However, that itself cannot be a factor to be considered while awardingcompensation, when the award of compensation is fixed by the IInd schedule.07.It is true that since 1994, there is no change in the IInd Schedule.However, the Legislature has not given any discretion to the Tribunals whiledetermining the amount of compensation. It is the Legislature which hasmade specific provision in section 164 of the Act that compensation in suchcases should be Rs. 5 lakhs. It is, thus, clear that the Legislature has not leftthis matter to the discretion of the Tribunal. In the case of Kishor Gopal(supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court had also considered that amount of Rs.12,000/- per year as income is not in tune with the inflation and diminishingvalue of Rupee.08.The learned Advocate for the respondent has also placed reliancein the case of Puttamma and Ors. Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy & Ors., (2013) 15 ( 6 ) fa134.21SCC 45. When the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered case of Kishan Gopal(supra) it is specifically held that it is not within domain of the Court to gointo all these aspects, once there is specific schedule and the Court can onlyadvise to re-consider. Thus, it is a matter for Legislature to determine theamount of compensation in such cases or otherwise to leave it to thediscretion of the Court, so long as it is not done.09.The learned Advocate for the respondent also placed reliance onthe judgment in the case of Meena Devi (supra). In that case in the year2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted amount of Rs. 5 lakhs as totalcompensation. In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court also consideredcase of Kishan Gopal (supra).10.Considering all above, this Court is left with no option than toaccept the amount as per IInd Schedule. Considering the scheme of the Act,as it is a beneficial legislation, this Court would follow the judgment in thecase of Kishan Gopal (supra), wherein total compensation was Rs.4,50,000/-.This Court further finds it necessary to grant amount towards consortium andfuneral expenses. The amount of consortium is thus granted Rs.40,000/- each ( 7 ) fa134.21to the petitioners i.e. Rs.80,000/- plus Rs.30,000/- under other heads. Thisamount of Rs.1,10,000/- needs to be added to the amount of Rs.4,50,000/-.11.Considering the above, following order :-ORDER(i)The appeal is partly allowed.(ii)The appellant are held entitled to recover Rs.5,60,000/-including the amount of ‘no fault liability’ along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization.(iii)The enhanced amount shall be deposited in this Courtwithin eight weeks from today. On deposit of amount, the officeshall disburse the amount to the appellants without requiringthem to file formal application for withdrawal of the said amount.(iv)The award be modified accordingly.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2024/JUL24/fa134.21