Posted On by &filed under High Court, Patna High Court - Orders.


Patna High Court – Orders
National Insurance Company Ltd. … vs Moti Ram &Amp; Ors on 2 July, 2010
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                            MA No.414 of 2008
                  NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR--Appellants.
                                  Versus
                  MOTI RAM & ORS. -----Respondents.

                    For the appellants: Sri Ashok Priyadarshi,Advocate.

                    For the respondents: Sri Pravin Kumar Singh, Advocates.

                                           ORDER

7 02.07.2010 This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the

Judgment dated 25.3.2008 and Award dated 10.4.2008 passed by

the learned Additional District Judge – cum – Fast Track Court-

7th , Munger, in M.V. Claim Case No.52/04 whereby

compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- was directed to be paid by the

appellant after deducting Rs.50,000/- paid as interim

compensation with interest at the rate of 9%.

2. The parents of the deceased filed the claim case

claiming compensation on the ground of death of their minor

son, namely, Law Kumar, in motor accident. It was alleged that

on 11.5.2004 at about 2.30 P.M. a Tata Maxi bearing

Registration No.BR 52 – 5659 which was being driven rashly

and negligently dashed him as a result of which he died in

course of treatment. He was aged about 15 years.

3. The learned court below by the impugned

order taking into account the age of the deceased applied the

multiplier of 15 and assessed the compensation.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant raised

only one ground that in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble
2

Supreme Court reported in 2003 (8) SCC 731 Municipal

Corporation of Greater Bombay versus Laxman Iyar and another

A.I.R. 2006 S.C.W. (2) 1116; Vijay Kumar Dugar versus

Vidyadhar Dutta, the Tribunal was required to consider the age

of the parents while computing the just compensation because

the claimants are the parents but contrary to the settled principles

of law the learned Tribunal has taken into account the age of the

deceased who died unmarried.

5. On the contrary the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the respondents submitted that there is no illegality

in the impugned order and Schedule-II of the M.V. Act is only

directory and only a guideline.

6. In the Municipal Corporation case (supra) cited

by the learned counsel for the appellant it appears that the

deceased was unmarried and aged about 18 years. In the present

case at our hand also the deceased was aged about 15 years. In

that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the compensation at

Rs.3,60000/-. In that case also the deceased was not earning and

in the present case also the deceased was not earning. In the case

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also the parents were the

claimants like this case.

7. In the case of Vijay Kumar Dugar (supra) it

appears that the deceased was aged about 25 years and he was

earning. The deceased was not a minor. The learned Tribunal in

that case accepted his monthly income as Rs.4000/-. The
3

Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the Judgment of the Tribunal.

8. From the above facts and circumstances it

appears that the case of Municipal Corporation is fully

applicable in the present case. In that case Rs.3,60000/- was

granted as compensation to the parents for the death of their son

who was aged about 18 years having no source of income. The

only difference in this case is the age of the deceased who was

aged about 15 years. It may be mentioned that the Schedule-II of

the M.V.Act is only a guideline and the courts are required to

calculate the just compensation after considering the various

facts. In the present case the learned Tribunal has awarded

Rs.1,53,000/- for the death of 15 years son of the claimants who

are old. In my opinion, by no stretch of imagination it can be

said that it is not a just compensation rather it is exorbitant. I am,

therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel

for the appellant that the compensation granted by the learned

Tribunal is exorbitant. As stated above, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has granted Rs.3,60,000/- in the aforesaid case, therefore,

on the technical ground that Schedule -II of the Motor Vehicle

Act should be followed strictly as submitted by the learned

counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. The court is

required to assess the just compensation.

9. In view of my above finding that the

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just

compensation in the present case, I am not inclined to interfere
4

with the impugned Judgment and Award only on the technical

grounds.

10. In the result, this Misc. appeal is dismissed.

11. The statutory amount deposited by the

appellants be transmitted to the court below so that it may be

paid to the claimants.

Anilkr.sinha                                    (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.178 seconds.