AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned advocate Mr.Palak H. Thakkar for
the appellant - insurance company and learned
advocate Mr.Hemal Shah for respondent Nos.1 and
2 being original claimants. Respondent No.3 is
deleted whereas respondent No.4 being owner of
the vehicle though duly served has remained
absent.
The insurance company of the vehicle which has
involved in a road accident has challenged the
judgment and award dated 23.1.2003 by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux-I) of Kachchh @
Bhuj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.311 of
1994. By such impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has directed the appellant to pay an
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation
with 9% interest thereon from the date of
filing of claim petition i.e. 4.6.1994 till the
amount is paid with proportionate cost of such
litigation.
Such amount of compensation was awarded because
of the undisputed fact that on 21.1.1994, when
victim and her father were proceeding towards
Subhashpura, the driver of truck No.GQY-4635
has driven it rashly, negligently and in
excessive speed and, therefore, lost control
over the truck which dashed and collided with
the victim Samotibai Noormamad Jat which
resulted into serious injuries for which she
succumbed to death. At the time of such
incident, deceased victim was aged about 12
years and having sound physique and good health
and she used do embroidery and knitting work
and earned Rs.450/- per month. After recording
evidence and after scrutiny of available
evidence, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.1,50,000/- to the claimants / respondents
being parents of the victim, considering that
victim was earning Rs.450/- per month and,
thereby, taking notional income as Rs.15,000/-
per annum applying 15 as suitable multiplier
and after deducting 1/3rd amount for personal
expenses. Therefore, from total calculation of
Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.15,000/- X 15), 1/3rd amount
is deducted and hence Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded.
The perusal of judgment makes it clear that
nothing further has been awarded on other heads
like non pecuniary damages.
Mr.P.H. Thakkar, learned advocate has contended
that if the monthly income of the victim is
considered, then, at the most, claimants are
entitled to only Rs.1,37,900/- as maximum
compensation or at-least Rs.1,27,900/- as just
and reasonable compensation. Therefore, the
only difference is less than Rs.25,000/- and if
we consider the proper calculation even as per
the submissions by the appellant then
difference is practically limited to
Rs.12,000/- only.
Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in
such award of Rs.1,50,000/- at this stage,
because in-fact compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the contrary on lower side.
It would be appropriate to recollect the
following decisions on the subject: -
(A) AIR 2007 SCC 324 between New India
Assurance Co. Ltd v. Satender wherein Hon''ble
Supreme Court has for the death of a child of 9
years, Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded.
(B) AIR 2009 SCC 2506 between R.K. Malik
v. Kiran Pal wherein while confirming an award
of Rs.1,50,000/- to dependents of children
between the age group of 10-15 years and
Rs.1,65,000/- to dependents of children between
age group of 15-18 years, the Hon''ble Supreme
Court has confirmed that parents of the victim
child are entitled to non-pecuniary damages of
Rs.75,000/- in addition to above compensation.
Therefore, for the age group of 10-15 years,
the total amount confirmed by the Hon''ble
Supreme Court is Rs.2,33,000/-.
(C) AIR 2014 SCC (Suppl) 173 between
Kishan Gopal v. Lala wherein the Hon''ble
Supreme Court has awarded Rs.5,00,000/- for the
death of boy aged 10 years.
(D) 2014 SCC (Weekly) 548 between
Radhakrishna v. Gokul wherein Hon''ble Supreme
Court has awarded Rs.7,00,000/- for the death
of 19 years old student.
In view of above facts and circumstances and
cited cases, I do not see any reason or
substance in this appeal filed by the Insurance
Company so as to reduce the amount of
compensation from Rs.1,50,000/- to
Rs.1,27,900/- as suggested. On the contrary,
the award is on lower side and, therefore, when
difference is also not much between the
proposed compensation by the appellant and
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, I do not
see any reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment in any manner whatsoever. Therefore,
there is no substance in the present appeal and
hence the same stands dismissed.