New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Yeshwant Korgaonkar and Others

F.M. Reis, J.—Heard Mr. E. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J.J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The above Petition challenges the Judgment and Award dated 18th December, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, at Margao, whereby compensation has been awarded to the Respondents to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000 with further interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition up to payment.

Mr. E. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has assailed the impugned Judgment and Award essentially on the ground that the Tribunal has fixed the compensation on the basis of notional income when it is well settled, according to him, that such exercise is not applicable to the children less than ten years. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Tribunal has based the compensation on the basis of future prospects which, according to him, is not acceptable in law. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the deceased was eight years old and, according to him, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not entitled for any amount more than Rs. 1,00,000. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Apex Court in the Judgment reported in R.K. Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal and Others, ., has awarded compensation for a child less than ten years to Rs. 1,05,000. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, ., learned Counsel has also relied upon the Judgment reported in VII (2007) SLT 248 : III (2007) ACC 10 (SC) : 2007 All S.C.R. 1857 in the case of Kaushlya Devi v. Karan Arora & Ors., and pointed out that compensation for a child of less than eight years was awarded a sum of Rs. 55,000. Learned Counsel as such submits that there are jurisdictional errors committed by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned Order which calls for interference by this Court.

On the other hand, Mr. J.J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has supported the impugned Judgment. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the child though was of eight years old, was assisting in the business of the family. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the deceased was the only child of the family and, consequently, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been deprived of their only child. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 97 of 2007, has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,15,000, in respect of a minor child. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the said two Judgments relied upon by Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, have been considered by the Division Bench to fix such compensation. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has rightly fixed the compensation and no interference is called for by this Court.

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have also gone through the records. On perusal of the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal has fixed the compensation on the basis of notional income and applied the multiplier of 15. In fact, in the Judgment of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court found that even minor child can be granted compensation on the basis of such notional income. Hence, the contention of Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, that compensation to children cannot be based on notional income, cannot be accepted. It is also observed therein that the said notional income was fixed in the year 1994 and, as such, it was suggested that the same should be revised. Considering the said aspect, I find that there is no infirmity committed by the learned Tribunal in fixing the notional income as considered in the impugned Award. Considering that the child was eight years old, the multiplier applied was 15 which works out to Rs. 2,25,000. The learned Tribunal has erroneously fixed the compensation on the assumption that the amount works out to Rs. 2,50,000 without considering the amounts to be deducted on account of personal expenses. Considering that the child is of eight years old, I find that a deduction of Rs. 50,000 would be fair and appropriate on account of personal expenses. After deducting the said amount, the compensation works out to Rs. 1,75,000. The Apex Court in the case of Kaushlya Devi v. Karan Arora & Ors., (supra), has awarded compensation for future prospects of a child upto Rs. 55,000 besides a sum of Rs. 75,000 awarded under non-pecuniary damages. In the present case, there is no material adduced by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to establish the future prospects of the child and the status of the child in his curriculum. In such circumstances, the future prospects should be fixed at Rs. 75,000. After considering the said amount, it comes to Rs. 2,50,000. After such deduction is effected and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the amount of compensation payable to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by the Petitioner comes upto Rs. 2,50,000. To that extent, the impugned Judgment and Award stands modified. In view of the above, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 18th December, 2007 is hereby modified. The Petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition upto the actual payment.

(ii) The Registry is directed to compute the amount and disburse the amount after hearing both the parties, payable to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in terms of the above Award along with interest accrued thereon.

(iii) Any excess amount to be refunded to the Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 with interest accrued thereon.

(iv) The Civil Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly.