A civil appeal was made before the high court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, regarding the negligence of pleading. The appellant claimed that he preferred motor vehicle act no.66 of 2011 whereas the respondent preferred no.115 of 2011 of the motor vehicle act.
Due to the rash and negligent driving of Mr. Sunil Gurum, respondent no.1. A series of mishappening took place. A boy name Ibran Ali aged 7 who studied in class II got a severe injury that resulted in death.
The appellant was the father of Ibran Ali who filed a petition under section 163-A of the motor vehicle act 1988 before the motor accidents claim tribunal.
The tribunal after considering all the facts and records concluded that respondent no.1 is liable to pay compensation of RS.2, 50,000 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of judgment and also stated that at the time of the accident, respondent no.1 was not carrying a valid license, so the insurance company-the respondent no.2 will pay the compensation amount and given right to recover the same amount from the owner of an offending motor vehicle.
Further, the appeal was made before the high court regarding the negligence of pleading by stating that respondent no.2 preferred no.115 of 2011 of the motor vehicle act and the appellant preferred no.66 of 2011 of the motor vehicle act.
The appeal before the high court was partly allowed, the appeal made by respondent no.2 was dismissed, and allowed the appeal made by the appellant and concluded by adding RS. 15000 for funeral expenses to the compensation amount.
Contentions/ submission of the appellant:
- The counsel of the appellant contended the compensation amount confirmed by the high court is lower.
- Claimed that the calculation of compensation should be covered under section 163-A of the motor vehicle act 1988 rather than RS. 15000 per annum as per schedule-II of the motor vehicle act 1988.
- By referring to the case of Puttamma & ors v/s K.L. Narayana Reddy & Anr, R.K Malik & Anr v/s Kiran Pal & Ors, Kishan Gopal & Anr v/s Lala & Ors the counsel contended that notional amount should change according to the increase in the cost of living.
Contentions/submission of respondents:
- By referring to the case of Rajesh Singh v/s National Insurance Company Limited & Ors the counsel of respondent no.2 contended that one person should not interfere with the judgments of the high court.
- Taking a view of the case reference given by the appellant counsel of Puttamma Ors, the court observed that Central Government fails to make the amendments to Schedule II given in section 163-A(3) of the act. Further directed to consider the cost of living while making amendments related to Schedule II and to increase the national income by taking inflation, cost of living, and devaluation of rupees into account.
- Taking the view of the case reference of R.K Malik and Anr the court observed that notional income is RS. 15,000 per annum under section 163–A of the act and also found that enhanced compensation is not amended since 14.11.1994.
- In the case reference of Kishan Gopal & Anr, the court observed that the deceased minor was of age 10 and the court fixed the notional income of RS. 30,000.
- Taking a view of the case reference given by respondent no-2 counsel, the court observed that the insurance company should not deliver any support to the insurance company.
The court concluded that compensation awarded to the appellant will be RS.4, 70,000 with interest at 6% from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
The compensation amount will be paid by respondent no.2 to the appellant and given the right to recuperate the same from the owner of an aberrant motor vehicle.
The court also stated the composition of compensation where notional income is of RS. 15,000 with a multiplier of 15 as per schedule II under section 163-A (3) of the motor vehicle act 1988, RS. 40,000 for the filial consortium and RS.15, 000 for funeral expenses. It is also being clarified that the improved compensation will be allocated by order of the tribunal to the appellant.
According to my opinion, the national income shouldn’t be fixed it should change according to the change in the cost of living, devaluation of money, and inflation. I agree with the decision of the court for considering the modification which is required by the cost of living, inflation, devaluation of money, and enhancing the compensation amount.
Judgment Name: Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali & Anr V/S Shyam Kishore Murmu & Anr
Judgment Date: 16th November 2021
Name of the Writer: Sonam Awasthy