LexKURVAN ANSARI ALIAS KURVAN ALI & ANR. versus SHYAM KISHORE MURMU & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R. KURVAN ANSARI ALIAS KURVAN ALI & ANR. v. SHYAM KISHORE MURMU & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6902 of 2021) NOVEMBER 16, 2021 [R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.163-A – Notional income – Determination of – Claim made under s.163-A – Deceased child - not an earning member – Tribunal considered notional income as per Schedule II for fixing compensation – Claimant seeking enhancement of compensation – Held: It was observed in Puttamma & Ors. that the Central Government was bestowed with the duties to amend Schedule-II in view of s.163-A(3), but it failed to do so – In view of the same, specific directions were issued in the said case to the Central Government to make appropriate amendments to Schedule-II keeping in mind the current cost of living – In spite of repeated directions, Schedule-II was not amended – Therefore, fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- p.a. for non earning member was not just and reasonable – In view of the judgments in Puttamma, R.K. Malik and Kishan Gopal, it is a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of the rupee and cost of living – Notional income of deceased fixed at Rs.25,000/ - p.a. and compensation awarded accordingly. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The Tribunal awarded compensation by taking notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. It was observed in Puttamma that the Central Government was bestowed with the duties to amend Schedule-II in view of Section 163-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, but it failed to do so. In view of the same, specific directions were issued to the Central Government to make appropriate amendments to Schedule-II keeping in mind the present cost of living. In the said judgment, till such amendments are made, directions were issued for award of compensation by fixing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the non-earning children up to the age of five years old and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for the non earning persons [2021] 7 S.C.R. 366 366 A B C D E F G H 367 of more than five years old. In the case of R.K. Malik also, this Court had observed that the notional income fixed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as Rs.15,000/- per annum should be enhanced and increased as the same continued to exist without any amendment since 14.11.1994. In the case of Kishan Gopal, where the deceased was a ten years old child, this Court had fixed his notional income at Rs.30,000/- per annum. In this case, the accident occurred on 06.09.2004. In view of the judgments in Puttamma, R.K. Malik and Kishan Gopal, it is a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of the rupee and cost of living. The notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.25,000/- per annum. [Paras 12-16][370-D-H; 371-B-C] Puttamma & Ors. v. K.L. Narayana Reddy & Anr. (2013) 15 SCC 45 : [2013] 16 SCR 831; Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 244 : [2013] 10 SCR 793 – relied on. Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 256 – held inapplicable. R.K. Malik & Anr. v. Kiran Pal & Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 1 : [2009] 10 SCR 87 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2013] 16 SCR 831 relied on Para 8 [2013] 10 SCR 793 relied on Para 8 [2009] 10 SCR 87 referred to Para 8 (2020) 7 SCC 256 held inapplicable Para 9 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6902 of 2021. From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2018 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Miscellaneous Appeal No.66 of 2011. S. N. Bhat, Adv. for the Appellants. Anubhav, Yashwant Singh Yadav, Ms. Preeti Yadav, Ravi Karhana, Amit Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, V. S. Chopra, Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Advs. for the Respondents. KURVAN ANSARI ALIAS KURVAN ALI & ANR. v. SHYAM KISHORE MURMU & ANR. A B C D E F G H 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. Leave Granted. 2. This Civil Appeal is preferred by the appellants - claimants in M.A. No.66 of 2011, preferred before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.08.2018. 3. Necessary facts, in brief, for disposal of this Appeal are that on 06.09.2004, while the son of the appellants - claimants viz., Ibran Ali, a boy aged about 7 (seven) years studying in Class-II, was standing by the side of the road in front of his
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.