NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR v. Ashok & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Appeal is dismissed summarily
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The decision relied upon in case of Bangalore 3 Metropolitan Transport Corporation V/s. Sarojamma and another reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court cases 142 does not advance the contention of the appellant. In that case, there was death of 18 years old unmarried son…
Judgment
The appellant – original respondent no.2 has filed this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents 1 and 2 – original claimants on account of death of their daughter aged about 16 years caused in motor vehicular accident which occurred on 5/3/2007 involving the truck bearing registration No.MH-34/M-1288 and insured with the appellant.
Mr. Paunikar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, raised two points in this appeal. First, the breach of policy conditions since three persons were travelling on a scooter. The plea is misconceived for the reason that the liability is saddled upon the truck which was insured with the 2 appellant. Therefore, question of the appellant raising the issue of breach of policy conditions of the scooter does not arise. At the most there can be plea of negligence on the part of driver of the scooter and same has been considered by learned Tribunal and held that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of the truck.
Considering the fact that the deceased aged about 16 years was non earning person, learned Tribunal considered the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum. Mr. Paunikar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that while doing so, learned Tribunal did not deduct the amount towards her personal expenses had she been alive. I do not concede to this contention for the simple reason that question of deduction would have arisen had the deceased been an earning person. The loss of dependency has not been calculated on the basis of annual income of the deceased. In that view of the matter, learned Tribunal was justified in assuming the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum and multiplying it with 16. The total amount awarded is Rs.2,50,000/- inclusive of no fault liability.
Operative part
The decision relied upon in case of Bangalore 3 Metropolitan Transport Corporation V/s. Sarojamma and another reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court cases 142 does not advance the contention of the appellant. In that case, there was death of 18 years old unmarried son who left behind him a mother, the sole heir. She was awarded compensation of Rs.3,84,000/- by applying the multiplier of 16. The High Court decreased the multiplier to 15 but enhanced the rate of interest. Their Lordships restored the decision of the Tribunal by holding that there was no justification for increase in the rate of interest. In that case, 1/3rd of the income was reduced since the deceased was earning member and his income was estimated at Rs.3,000/- per month. The other decision relied upon is in case Sarla Verma (SMT) and others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court cases 121 to canvass that while calculating the loss of dependency deduction towards personal expenses is required to be made. It was the case of an earning person aged about 38 years dying in a motor vehicular accident. Present is the case where compensation is awarded in case of death of non earning person on the basis of notional income. In Rekhabai and another V/s. Basant Kumar and others reported in 2011 (4) T.A.C. 586 4 (M.P.) there was death of 6 ½ years old boy studying in class 1. Compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- was awarded by Tribunal which was enhanced by further sum of Rs.50,000/-. Reference can also be made to the decision in case of R.K. Mailk and another V/s. Kiran Pal and others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 1. It was the case of death of school going children in a motor vehicular accident. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- for child above age of 15 years which was enhanced by further sum of Rs.75,000/- by the High Court. In an appeal by the parents of the deceased, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court added Rs.75,000/- over and above what was awarded by the High Court. Thus total amount of compensation awarded for a child below 15 years of age was Rs.3,05,000/- and for a child above 15 years of age was Rs.3,25,000/-. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed summarily. JUDGE Tambaskar.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Appeal is dismissed summarily
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 29 Mar 2012. The bench was M N GILANI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.