Niti v. Mr. Shankar Hammappunawar

#1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

#2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.08.2016 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), North Goa, in Claim Petition No.43/2015, awarding the appellants (claimants) compensation of 1,75,000/- with ₹ interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the death of their four- year-old son Master Saeel Govindappa Biroji in a vehicular accident on 13.07.2011.

#3. Mr. Marshal, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the Claim Petition was filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act. He submits that the Tribunal erred in taking the annual income of the deceased at ₹15,000/- per annum when the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in R.K. Malik V/s. Kiran Pal1 had observed that the notional income fixed under Section 163-A of the MV Act should be enhanced since the same had continued without any amendment since 14.11.1994. He relied on Kurvan 1 (2009) 14 SCC 1 18th August 2022 224-FA-105-2016 Ansari alias Kurvan Ali & Anr. V/s. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Anr.2 to submit that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the annual income of a seven-year-old child who died in a vehicular accident at 25,000/- per annum. He ₹ pointed out that towards filial consortium and funeral expenses, ₹ additional compensation of 95,000/- was also awarded.

#4. Mr. Marshal submits that in Kurvan Ansari (supra), the accident took place on 06.09.2004 and, therefore, in the present case, the annual income should be much higher than 25,000/- ₹ per annum. Based on all this, Mr. Marshal submitted that the compensation of 5,00,000/- claimed by the claimants was just ₹ compensation, and the Tribunal erred in not awarding the same.

#5. Mr. Timble, learned Counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company, defended the impugned award based on the reasons. He submitted that until and unless the schedule to the MV Act is amended, there is no question of enhancing the amounts referred to therein. He submitted that an additional amount of only 25,000/- can be granted under Section 163-A ₹ towards consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses, etc. He submitted that the Tribunal correctly distinguished children under five years and above. He submitted that the Tribunal has 2 2021 (4) TAC 673 (SC) 18th August 2022 224-FA-105-2016 also relied on Supreme Court decisions; therefore, no case is made to warrant interference.

#6. Mr. Timble, without prejudice, submitted that the interest of 9% per annum, in this case, was excessive because the accident occurred on 13.07.2011. He submits that the interest should have been a maximum of 6% per annum, not 9% per annum.

#7. The rival contentions now fall for determination.

#8. Admittedly, the claimants applied for compensation under Section163-A of the MV Act. However, the same was the position in Kurvan Ansari (supra), where the son of the appellants, Ibran Ali, a boy aged seven years, died in a vehicular accident on

06.09.2004.

#9. The Tribunal in Kurvan Ansari (supra) went by the schedule. It took the notional income of the deceased at ₹ 15,000/- per annum and, by applying the multiplier of 15, awarded compensation of 2,25,000/- with interest at the rate of ₹ 6% per annum. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the Insurance Company and partly allowed the claimants' appeal by awarding a further sum of 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. ₹ The claimants were thus awarded total compensation of 18th August 2022 224-FA-105-2016 ₹2,40,000/- for the death of their seven-year-old son in a vehicular accident that took place on 06.09.2004.

#1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, referred to its decisions in Puttamma V/s. K.L. Narayana Reddy3, R.K. Malik (supra), Kishan Gopal V/s. Lala4 and Rajendra Singh V/s. National Insurance Company Limited5 held that the compensation awarded under Section 163-A of the MV Act was inadequate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court enhanced this amount to 4,70,000/-. An amount of ₹3,75,000/- was awarded towards ₹ loss of dependency after taking the notional income of the child at ₹25,000/- per annum. An amount of ₹80,000/- was awarded x 2), and ₹15,000/- was towards filial consortium (40,000/- ₹ awarded towards funeral expenses.

#2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reasoned that in R.K. Malik and Kurvan Ansari (supra), the Court had observed that the notional income fixed under Section 163-A of the MV Act 1988 ₹ is 15,000/- per annum, which should be enhanced and increased as the same is continued unamended since 14.11.1994. The Court also referred to its decision in Kishan Gopal (supra), where