Anita v. Raju

1. In the present Appeal, the Appellant who is the mother of the deceased minor, is impugning the Award dated 15.09.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT, Delhi in Suit No.177/2009 titled as Anita Vs. Raju. The Appellant prays for the enhancement of the compensation amount. Vide the said award, the learned Tribunal was pleased to grant a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses) with interest @ 2022:DHC:3528 7.5% p.a. from the date of presentation till the date of realization in favour of the Appellant herein.

2. The unfortunate accident dated 26.04.2009 resulted in the death of Alekh Kumar, who was aged 13 years and 4 months and was studying in the 10th-11th standard at the time of the alleged incident. On the day of the fateful accident, Alekh Kumar was travelling pillion with Vineet (PW[2]) on his scooter. At Jhuggi Village Sindhora Kalan, Sarai Rohilla, they were hit from behind by a bus bearing no. DL-1PB-3040 that was being recklessly and rapidly driven by Respondent No. 1. The deceased died in the accident which resulted after being falling on the road and being run over by the negligent vehicle. FIR No. 110/2009 dated 26.04.2009 was registered against the Respondent No. 1, the bus driver of Delhi Roadways, under Sections 279/337/304 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station P.S. Sarai Rohilla, New Delhi.

3. The Appellant, mother of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. It is her case that her son was studying and was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m by selling vegetables on Rehri. However, the Appellant could not adduce any proof to the said effect and hence the learned Tribunal presumed the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- p.a as per second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and calculated the loss of income as Rs.2,40,000/-(Rs.15,000X16). In addition, the learned Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- each towards ‘Funeral Expenses’ and ‘Loss of Estate’. The learned Tribunal granted interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of presenting the claim petition till realization.

4. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded as compensation by the learned Tribunal, the Appellant preferred the present Appeal against the impugned award under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the compensation awarded to her.

5. Mr. Saurav Kansal, learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the deceased was around 15 years old and was in good health. The deceased was a student who supported his mother by doing part time jobs like selling vegetables and giving tuition to children. The deceased was a brilliant student who studied hard despite the family's poor financial situation and was confident of a bright future prospects. Therefore, it may be assumed that he had high aspirations for his future. It is the contention of the Appellant that the learned Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/p.a. based on the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further argued that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs DTC & Anr. reported as 2009 (6) SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi reported as 2017 (16) SCC 680, the Appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation.

6. Mr. J. P. N. Shahi, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 contended that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Vineet (PW-2). He further submitted that the Appellant has failed to prove the income of the deceased by leading any evidence and hence the learned Tribunal had rightly fixed the income of the deceased based on the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. This Court has heard arguments advanced by both the parties and has examined the records placed before this Court. On perusal of the record, this Court observes that the learned Tribunal has fixed the income of the minor deceased as Rs.15,000/- p.a based on the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had examined the issue of whether the notional income of Rs.15,000/- p.a. based on the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is adequate compensation for a non-earning member in Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, reported as (2022) 1 SCC 317 and held, inter alia, as follows:

8. In the present case, the deceased was 13 years 4 months old at the time of death. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased used to contribute to the family income by doing part time jobs. This Court also notes the age of the Appellant at the time of the accident was 34 years. Hence considering the overall circumstances of the present case and based on the parameters as applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Ors Vs Lala & Ors reported as 2014 (1) SCC 244, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.30,000/- p.a. Since the deceased was 13 years 4 months at the time of death, multiplier of 15 is to be applied in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra). Further, since the deceased was aged 13 years at the time of alleged incident, an addition of 40% of the established income should be granted under the head ‘Future Prospects’. With regard to deduction to be made towards ‘Personal and Living Expenses’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) upholds the deduction ascertained in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). As per the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) deduction are to be calculated as under: -