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.)
