MEENA DEVI versus NUNU CHAND MAHTO @ NEMCHAND MAHTO & ORS

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 449 · Decided: 13-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
449
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 449
449
MEENA DEVI
v.
NUNU CHAND MAHTO @ NEMCHAND MAHTO & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7255 of 2022)
OCTOBER 13, 2022
[SANJIV KHANNA AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:ss. 140, 166 rw s.171 –
Compensation – Enhancement of – Death of 12 year old boy in a
motor accident – Tribunal awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.
1,50,000/-, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,00,000/- up
to the value of the claim petition – On appeal, held: Less valuation,
if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award
just compensation exceeding the claimed amount – Tribunal/court
ought to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts
relying upon the evidence produced on record – On facts, the
amount of compensation not just and reasonable looking to the
computation made – As per the ocular statement of the mother of
the deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student, studying
in a private school, thus, accepting the notional earning as Rs.
30,000/- including future prospect and applying the multiplier of
15, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and adding Rs.
50,000/- in conventional heads, the total sum of compensation would
be Rs. 5,00,000/- – Thus, the compensation as awarded by the High
Court enhanced by Rs. 3,00,000/-, in addition.
Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others (2014)
1 SCC 244 : [2013] 10 SCR 793 – relied on.
R.K. Malik and another vs. Kiran Pal and others (2009)
14 SCC 1 : [2009] 10 SCR 87; Sarla Verma & Others
vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6
SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098; Lata Wadhwa and
others vs. State of Bihar and others (2001) 8 SCC 197
: [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 578; M.S. Grewal & another vs.
Deep Chand Sood & others (2001) 8 SCC 151 : [2001]
2 Suppl. SCR 156; Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali &
another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another (2022)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
450
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
1 SCC 317; Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and others
(2003) 2 SCC 274 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 499 – referred
to.
Taff Vale Rly. Vs. Jankins 1913 AC 1 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2009] 10 SCR 87
referred to
Para 4
[2013] 10 SCR 793
relied on
Para 4
[2009] 5 SCR 1098
referred to
Para 4
[2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 578
referred to
Para 9
[2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 156
referred to
Para 9
(2022) 1 SCC 317
referred to
Para 10
[2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 499
referred to
Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7255
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.2018 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in M.A. No. 16 of 2013.
D. P. Chaturvedi, Anuj Verma, Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Anup Kumar, Ms. Shruti Singh, Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of the present case are that
the child, namely; Bankee Bihari, aged about 12 years on the date of
accident i.e. 29.7.2003, while playing in front of his house, was dashed
by the Commander Jeep bearing registration No. JH-11A 6894 and
died on the way, while being taken to a hospital in Dhanbad. A Claim
Petition under Sections 140, 166 read with Section 171 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the M.V. Act”) seeking compensation
to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest was filed by the appellant,
who is the mother of the deceased child.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
451
3. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih (for short, “M.A.C.T.”)
granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lump sum. On
assailing the inadequacy of such an award by filing Miscellaneous Appeal
No. 16 of 2013, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi enhanced the
amount of compensation to Rs. 2,00,000/- equivalent to the value of the
claim made in the Claim Petition.
4. The adequacy of grant of such compensation has been
questioned by filing the present appeal, inter alia, contending that the
High Court erred in assessing the amount in the heads of “pecuniary”
and “non-pecuniary” loss. MACT and the High Court have not granted
any amount under the head “loss of prospective happiness” and other
conventional heads and the amount as granted under the head of loss of
dependency is inadequate. Therefore, the compensation may be
enhanced. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in R.K. Malik
and another vs. Kiran Pal and others (2009)14 SCC 1, it is urged that
the High Court committed error in assessing the less quantum for notional
income of the deceased wit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.