United India Insurance Company Limited vs Munna Kumar Singh and Others

S.N. Pathak, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the United India Insurance Company which was O.P. No. 3 in the Court below. The Appellant has assailed the judgment and award passed by the 7th Addl. District Judge-cum-M.V. Claims Tribunal, Chapra, in Claim Case No. 15 of 1994.

The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed the aforesaid claim case on the allegation that their son Ranjan Kumar died in a motor accident on 18.10.1993 in which the offending vehicle was truck bearing Regd. No. BHD 7161. The deceased was a boy aged about 10 years on the date of accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation amount of Rs. 1,42,000/-. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid as interim compensation and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,17,000/- was directed to be paid by the Appellant to the claimant-Respondents.

The Appellant''s lawyer submitted that it has been a practice followed by this Court and some other High Courts to award a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the claimants on the death of a minor boy. So the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was illegal and unwarranted. The claimant-Respondent''s lawyer referred to a decision rendered by the Supreme Court, as reported in 2001 ACJ 1735 and relying on this decision, submitted that the award allowed by the Tribunal was neither excessive nor illegal nor unjustified. I find that in the reported case, there were several claimants of so many persons minor and major who died in an accidental fire that had engulfed a Pandal set up for celebration of birth anniversary of Sir Jamshedjee Tata. The Supreme Court assessed the compensation amount for major and minor children between the age group of 5-10 and 10-15 years by applying the principle as laid down under Schedule-II of the M.V. Act, 1994. In the reported case, the alleged accident had taken place on 3rd March 1989 when M.V. Act, 1988 was in force. Still Supreme Court took into consideration the principles of M.V. Act, 1994 (Schedule-II). In the reported case, the Supreme Court also used the multiplier system as amended by the M.V. Act, 1994 and the compensation amount assessed on that basis was added to the lump sum of conventional amount. So the Supreme Court assessed the compensation amount for the death of minors also fixing an amount much higher than the usual compensation amount by a lump sum of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) generally and usually being granted by the Court. Moreover, I am of the opinion that, if at all; a lump sum amount is to be awarded to the claimants for the death of deceased boy of 10 years or less than 10 years or above that, it is not necessary that the lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- should always and in all cases and in all circumstances be awarded. It would depend upon the circumstances of each and every case and I am of the opinion that the principle enjoined by the Amending Act, 1994 may not necessarily be shut out in computing the compensation amount and where the Supreme Court has done this, as exemplified by the aforesaid reported case. I am of the opinion that the same principle may be adopted by this Court as well. The Appellants'' lawyer has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, wherein it was held that Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 was defective. However, this defect, as pointed out by the aforesaid decision is with respect to calculation of the amount mentioned in the aforesaid Schedule. Other decisions, including the decisions reported in (1999)3 TSE 528, (1993) TSC 195, and yet some other decisions have also been referred to by the Appellant''s lawyer to submit that the compensation amount granted by the Court below is excessive. However, I find that the decision which was reported in Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, was based on the family background of the deceased minors or majors. Whatever may be the case, it is apparent that now the Supreme Court is adopting the principles enumerated in Schedule-II, M.V. Act, 1994 for assessing the compensation amount for the claimants of minor deceased. I have already stated above that no fixed criteria for assessing the compensation amount of minor deceased can be followed. The Tribunal, in the instant case, assessed the compensation amount for the representatives of the deceased minor, taking into consideration the age of the claimants and the status of the family as also the future prospects of the deceased. The Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of Rs. 500/- per month and then multiplied it by figure-''18'' which came to Rs. 1,25,000/- to which was added the non-monetary compensation of Rs. 17,000/- for loss of company and grief suffered by the parents of the deceased. However, if notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as laid down in Schedule-II of the Act is taken to be the income of the deceased, the multiplier to be fixed for a minor upto the age of 15 years, as given in Schedule-II is figure- ''15''. So if 1/3rd of Rs. 15,000/- is reduced Rs. 10,000/- will be the annual amount to be paid to the claimants and after multiplying the same with figure-''15'' it would come to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs. 1,42,000/-. So the amount is neither excessive nor unjustified, in view of the principle laid down in the M.V. Act, 1994. So I am of the opinion that it is not necessary that this Court must interfere with the award given by the Tribunal which was ordered to be paid by the Appellants. The interest granted by the trial Court was 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application and 18 per cent per annum, if the amount was not paid within two months from the date of order. Now, the interest rate has been reduced to 9 per cent per annum and the Tribunal wrongly awarded a penal interest of 18 per cent per annum. So I think, the interest should be reduced to 9 per cent from the date of filing of the application till its realization.

With the aforesaid modification in the award rendered by the Tribunal, this appeal is dismissed.