Parmod Kumar and Others vs Kuldeep Singh and Others

Navita Singh, J.—This appeal is preferred against the award dated 12.01.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ("Tribunal" for short), Karnal, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,90,000/- was granted to the appellants on account of death of their son Arun Kumar in a road accident on 24.4.2007. The prayer is for enhancement. The case of the appellants before the Tribunal was that the accident look place on 24.4.2007 on account of rash and negligent driving of bus No. PB-11Z-9788 by respondent No. 1, as a result of which, Arun Kumar, who was travelling in the said bus for returning home after attending school, died. The bus at that time was going from village Nandi to Labhkari and at about 2.30 p.m. when it reached near the shop of Jaswinder Singh, near bus stand, Labhkari, where the uncle of Arun Kumar i.e. Rajinder Singh was sitting, respondent No. 1 stopped the bus at that point for the children to alight and one of the passengers to de-board was the deceased, who came out of the bus from the front door. All of a sudden, respondent No. 1, without ensuring that Arun Kumar had properly got down, drove the bus in a careless manner. The child fell down on the metalled road and the rear wheel of the bus ran over his head and he died at the spot. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the bus. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was stated to be 14 years and compensation of Rs. 20 lacs was claimed.

Respondent No. 1 filed written statement pleading, besides taking legal objections, that no accident, as alleged had taken place. He stated that the bus, as alleged was not involved in the accident and a false story had been projected by the appellants. Respondent No. 2 pleaded in a separate written statement, that the bus was owned by it but it was sold to respondent No. 2-A Mohan Singh son of Sadhu Ram and as such the answering respondent was not in any way liable. No objection certificate along with other legal documents had already been furnished.

Respondents No. 2-A and 3 were proceeded against ex parte. The bus was not insured.

The following issues were settled for adjudication by the Tribunal:-

"1. Whether the motor vehicular accident, which took place on 24.04.2007 was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. PB-11Z-9788 by Kuldeep Singh, respondent No. 1, resulting into the death of Arun Kumar. If so, its effect? OPP

If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to receive any amount of compensation. How much and from whom? OPP

Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR

Whether the claim petition is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPR

Relief."

After considering the evidence of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the notional income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000/- per annum and the income on the basis of which compensation for the appellants was to be assessed would be Rs. 10,000/- per annum after taking out 1/3rd for the deceased himself. Accordingly, total compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/-, by applying the multiplier of 18, as per famous Sarla Verma case, was granted together with a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for transportation and last rites etc.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the trial Court erred in granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- by taking notional income of the deceased, which was not adequate. The compensation for performance of last rites and transportation was also insufficient. Nothing was given for loss of love and affection. He referred to Kishan Gopal and Another Vs. Lala and Others, wherein on account of death of a child aged 10 years, compensation was awarded taking notional income of the child to be Rs. 30,000/- and multiplier of 15 was applied. On that count, compensation was awarded to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/- while a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded under conventional heads, towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and last rites. The reported case, in which Rs. 5,00,000/- was awarded for a child aged 10 years, can be distinguished on facts because in the said case there was evidence of the child assisting his parents in agricultural occupation. His notional income was taken accordingly. The amount of compensation was awarded having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years old, who was assisting his parents in their agricultural occupation, which was an undisputed fact. In this case, nothing has been pleaded by the appellants that deceased child was helping them and earning. Rather it is clear that he was a school student and that he was coming back from his school on the fateful day. The notional income was, therefore, rightly assessed by the Tribunal and the multiplier was also correctly applied. The amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- awarded on the basis of notional income, was, therefore, sufficient.

However, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the meager amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded under the conventional heads i.e. funeral expenses and the expenses of last rites was liable to be enhanced especially when nothing was awarded towards love and affection, holds some water and it is felt that the compensation under conventional heads needs to be enhanced. In Kishan Gopal (supra), the Supreme Court awarded an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- cumulatively for loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites following in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, . Thus, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded on that count is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. The total amount of compensation is, therefore, enhanced from Rs. 1,90,000/- to Rs. 2,30,000/-, the other terms regarding the interest etc. remaining the same. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.