Kishan Gopal Vs Lala .

Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7137 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.21139 of 2011)

KISHAN GOPAL & ANR. … APPELLANTS Vs.

LALA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V.Gopala Gowda, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellants

questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 15th

March, 2011 passed in SBCMA No.1283 of 2000 by the

High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench,

affirming the judgment and award dated 25.5.2000 of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (for short

Page 2

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

'the Tribunal') in MAC case No.7/93, urging various

relevant facts and legal contentions in support of

their claim made in this appeal.

2. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find

out whether the appellants are entitled for the

reliefs as prayed in this appeal.

The appellants are the parents of the deceased

Tikaram, who died in a road accident on 19.07.1992 on

account of rash and negligent driving of the motor

vehicle tractor bearing registration No. RJX 5532 by

the driver, as he was traveling in the trolley which

was turned upside down and he fell down from the

trolley and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed

to the same. The FIR was registered with the Police

Station Uniara, Tonk being case No.121/92. After

investigation in the case, charge-sheet No.81/92

(Ex.2) was filed on 30.07.1992 against the first

respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle and

2 -

Page 3

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

its owner the respondent No.2. A site map (Ex.3) was

drawn up, post-mortem of the deceased was conducted

and post-mortem Report was marked as Ex.7. The

claimants, being the appellants-parents, who have lost

their son at the age of 10 years in the motor vehicle

accident and the vehicle was insured with respondent

No.3 - the Insurance Company, preferred claim petition

under Section 140 read with Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'M.V. Act') claiming

compensation for Rs.15,63,000/- under the headings of

loss of dependency, mental agony, loss of love and

affection, expenses incurred for carrying dead body

and performing last rites of the deceased son as per

Hindu customs. Further, they have, inter alia, pleaded

that the son would have earned a sum of Rs.2000/- p.m.

after the age of 18 years and he would have lived upto

70 years, therefore, multiplied by 52 for claiming the

financial assistance that he could have rendered to

the parents, the same is worked out to Rs.12,48,000/-.

3 -

Page 4

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

3. Notices were served upon respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle.

Despite service of notice upon them they did not

choose to appear and contest the proceedings and

therefore, they were placed ex-parte in the claim

proceedings before the Tribunal.

4. The Insurance Company appeared and filed its statement of counter denying the various averments of

the claim petition and pleaded that the deceased son

of the appellants was not studying and further

disputed that there was possibility of earning

Rs.2000/- p.m. by the deceased. It was further

pleaded that in the FIR, it is mentioned that deceased

boy was going in the tractor-trolley, fell down from

it on account of rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle by the first respondent, the

deceased son sustained grievous injuries and

succumbed to the same. It is further stated that the

driver of the offending vehicle had no right to carry

4 -

Page 5

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

passenger in a tractor as it is exclusively required

to be used for the agricultural operation and

therefore, there is contravention of the terms and

conditions of the insurance policy issued in favour of

the owner of the offending vehicle. It is further

stated by the Insurance Company that the trolley was

not registered and the driver of the offending vehicle

did not have the valid licence and hence, it is not

liable to pay compensation as claimed by the

appellants. On the basis of the pleadings, five issues

were framed by the Tribunal for its determination.

5.On behalf of the appellants, Kishan Gopal the father of the deceased was examined as AW-1. He has

deposed in his evidence narrating the manner in

which the accident took place and marked the

documents produced by him viz. FIR, charge-sheet,

Site Map, Notice under Section 174, Insurance cover

note, Mechanical Inspection, post-mortem Report,

Notice under Section 133 and the Registration

5 -

Page 6

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

Certificate as Exhs. 1 to 9 respectively. AW-2, who

was cultivating in the adjoining field situated near

the place of accident was examined on behalf of the

appellants and he has spoken about the incident and

deposed that the deceased boy was going in the

tractor-trolley and the first respondent-driver was

driving the tractor and the trolley turned down and

he fell down as the driver drove the tractor with

high speed negligently and he had sustained

grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. The

respondent Insurance Company have not adduced the

rebuttal evidence in support of its pleaded case in

its counter statement. In the counter statement of

the Insurance Company, it is pleaded that the claim

petition filed by the appellants is a fabricated

one in collusion with the driver and the owner of

the offending vehicle. It is not forthcoming from

the judgment of Tribunal that the Insurance Company

has filed the application under Section 170(b) of

6 -

Page 7

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

the M.V. Act seeking permission from the Tribunal in

the proceedings to avail the defence available for

the insured of the offending vehicle to contest the

proceedings on merits. As could be seen from the

record, the lawyer of the Insurance Company has

cross-examined the appellants' witnesses before the

Tribunal.

6. The Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and legal evidence on record, has answered the issue

No.1, after adverting to the averments of the claim

petition and evidence on record, and held that the

appellants have not succeeded in proving that

Tikaram died because of falling from the tractor-

trolley which was driven rashly and negligently by

the driver. Issue No.2 was also answered holding

that the appellants are not entitled for the

compensation as claimed by them for the reason that

the finding recorded on the issue No.1 is in the

negative.

7 -

Page 8

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the appellants filed an appeal before the

High Court questioning the correctness of the findings

recorded on the contentious issue Nos.1 & 2 contending

that rejection of the claim petition by it is not only

erroneous in fact but also suffers from error in law.

Therefore, they have approached the High Court by

filing an appeal for grant of just and reasonable

compensation to them setting aside the judgment and

award of the Tribunal.

8. The learned Judge of the High Court has not exercised his appellate jurisdiction by reappreciating

the pleadings and evidence on record and he had

mechanically concurred with the findings and reasons

recorded by the Tribunal on the contentious issues in

its judgment and dismissed the appeal by passing a

cryptic order without adverting to the pleadings,

legal evidence and legal contentions urged on behalf

of the parties.

8 -

Page 9

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

9. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the High Court and they

have filed this appeal urging various tenable grounds.

As per the Office Report dated 13th December, 2012,

Notice was issued to all the respondents. M/s M.M.

Kashyap and Aftab Ali Khan, Advocates have filed

vakalatnama and memo of appearance on behalf of

respondent Nos. 1 and 3 respectively and also filed

counter affidavits on their behalf. Acknowledgement

card duly signed by respondent No.2 has been received

back in proof of the service of notice upon him but no

one has entered appearance and filed vakalatnama or

memo of appearance on his behalf, therefore, it is

reported that the service of notice on him is

complete.

10. This appeal was listed before this Court on 14.12.2012, when the Court was pleased to pass the

following order:-

“Send for the record of award dated 25.05.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims

9 -

Page 10

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

Tribunal, Tonk, Rajasthan in MACT Case No.7/1993.

The Registry is directed to send requisition to the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. It is expected that the Presiding Officer will remit the record of the case without any delay.

Put up after the receipt of the record.”

11. This appeal was listed before the Court on 12th

August, 2013. On behalf of the appellants we have

heard Mr.Praveen Kumar Jain, Advocate. None appeared

on behalf of the respondents and this Court granted

leave. Though respondent Nos.1 & 3 have filed their

counter affidavits reiterating the averments made in

the counter statement filed by the Insurance Company

before the Tribunal extracting certain portion from

the FIR and Statements of Evidence of AW-1 – the

father of the deceased and AW-2 - the brother of the

deceased and placed strong reliance upon the

definition of 'trailer' as defined under Section 2(46)

of the M.V. Act, and that the trolley of the tractor

is not registered with the registering Authority. The

10

Page 11

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

tractor with trolley can be used only for agricultural

purposes but not for carrying passengers which would

be in contravention of the provisions of the M.V. Act

and terms and conditions of the policy issued covering

the Motor Vehicle Tracter. Therefore, it is stated by

the Insurance Company that by allowing the deceased

boy to travel in the trolley of the tractor, the

driver has violated the terms & conditions of the

insurance policy and law and it has also placed

reliance upon the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur1, in support of its defence wherein this Court has held that the

passengers, who travel in the goods carriage and die

in the accident are not entitled to get any

compensation from the Insurance Company under the

policy.

12. Respondent No.1 has filed counter affidavit, stating the following averments, the relevant

paragraphs are extracted hereunder for our perusal:- 1(2004) 2 SCC 1

11

Page 12

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

“2...That there is contradiction in statement of Kishan Gopal AW1 and Babu AW2 as Babu stated that Tikaram deceased fell down due to rash and negligent driving of tractor by Lala the Deponent herewith. Whereas Kishan Gopal stated that Tikaram fell down due to rash and negligent driving of tractor by which tractor got turned. 3. That deceased Tikaram was not studying in School and there is no possibility of earning Rs.2000/- per month.

4. That as passenger cannot travel in tractor and death was caused sitting in trolly which is not allowed. The petitioner cannot claim any compensation for the negligence of Tikaram sitting in trolly. Tractor can only be used for agricultural purposes. 5. That driver had no valid licence. 6. That learned Tribunal in its award rightly gave finding that there is contradiction in statement of Kishan Gopal AW1 and Babu AW2 as Kishan Gopal stated that his son died as his son was hit by Lala driving the tractor fast and negligently. Whereas Babu stated that Lala was driving tractor rashly and negligently because of which the tractor got turned down and in the accident Tikaram died. As per the contradictions the case was not proved by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Further, there are contradictions in the statement of witnesses and FIR.

12

Page 13

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

7. That the Insurance Company did not appear to prove the fact that Lala was not having valid licence to drive tractor.

8. That Insurance Company has to prove that driver has not got valid licence. The finding to this effect given by learned Tribunal is right.

9. That petitioner is not entitled for any compensation.

10. That the above special leave petition may kindly be dismissed.”

13. The ground urged by the appellants in this appeal is that the High Court has erred in concurring

with the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal in

its judgment on the contentious issue Nos.1 & 2. It is

erroneous for the reason that the same is contrary to

substantive evidence on record in favour of the

appellants and no rebuttal evidence is adduced by the

Insurance Company in the case to accept its defence

pleas and record the finding on the contentious issue

Nos.1 and 2 in its favour. Further, it is urged that

both the Tribunal and the High Court have not taken

13

Page 14

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

into consideration the relevant indisputed fact that

the criminal case is registered against respondent

No.1-the driver and respondent no.2-the owner of the

vehicle and the charge-sheet is filed against them.

Both AW-1 and AW-2 adduced evidence before the

Tribunal stating that the deceased son of the

appellants was traveling in the trolley of the

tractor, it was turned down on account of rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by

respondent No.1 and he fell down from the trolley and

the tractor tyre ran over the body and he sustained

grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Further,

it is urged that in the absence of evidence of either

the driver or the owner of the tractor and also in the

absence of rebuttal evidence on behalf of the

Insurance Company in support of its pleadings, the

finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal stating that

the accident did not take place on account of rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the

14

Page 15

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

driver is erroneous, as it has failed to consider the

evidence on record in a proper perspective in favour

of the appellants. The finding recorded by the

Tribunal without appreciating the entire evidence of

AW-1 and AW-2 on record, by picking bits and piece of

certain sentences from evidence of the witnesses and

FIR Exh.1 and answered the contentious issue No.1

against the appellants which approach of it is

erroneous, which finding is erroneously affirmed by

the High Court, mechanically without re-appreciating

the evidence and assigning valid and cogent reasons in

support of its conclusion in concurring with the

Tribunal. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal

has since answered the contentious issue No.1 holding

that the death of Tikaram is not due to rash and

negligent driving of the tractor by its driver is not

proved, it has answered the contentious issue No.2

stating that the question of awarding compensation as

claimed by the appellants does not arise and

15

Page 16

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

consequently, it has rejected the claim petition,

which decision of it is not only erroneouos, but, also

suffers from error in law. Therefore, the learned

counsel for the appellants has requested this Court to

award just and reasonable compensation in favour of

the appellants by allowing this appeal.

14. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3 counter affidavits have been filed but none appeared at the

time of hearing. After hearing the learned counsel for

the appellants, this appeal was reserved for judgment.

On the basis of the factual and rival legal

contentions urged on behalf of the appellants, the

following points are framed for consideration of this

Court:-

I) Whether the findings of fact recorded on

issue Nos.1 & 2 framed by the Tribunal,

which finding is affirmed by the High Court

in the impugned judgment is vitiated on

account of erroneous reasoning?

16

Page 17

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

II) Whether the appellants are entitled for

compensation, if so to what amount?

III) What award?

15. The first point is required to be answered in favour of the appellants by assigning the following

reasons:-

The deceased son of the appellants died in an

accident, while he was traveling in a trolley of the

tractor bearing No.RJX-5532 on 19.07.1992, the trolley

turned down on account of rash and negligent driving

of the tractor by the driver-respondent No.1. In this

regard, the FIR was registered being FIR No.121/92

with the Uniara Police Station, Tonk. On the basis of

the said FIR, the investigation was made by the

Investigation Officer and charge-sheet No.81/92 was

filed on 30.07.1992 against the driver and the owner

of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable

under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC read with certain

17

Page 18

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

provisions of the M.V.Act. The FIR and the charge-

sheet were produced in the evidence of the first

appellant-the father of the deceased, who was examined

as AW-1. He has also produced and marked the site map

(Ex.3), action taken under Section 174 (Ex.4),

Insurance cover note Ex.5, Mechanical inspection Ex.6

and post-mortem report Ex.7 as exhibits in the

evidence to substantiate the case of the appellants to

show that accident took place on account of rash and

negligent driving of driver of the tractor. AW-2 -

Babu s/o Kishan Gopal, r/o Bhat-Ka Nada, Tehsil

Uniara, Dist. Tonk, who is an agriculturist by

occupation, is examined on behalf of the appellants,

who has deposed before the Tribunal and he has stated

that the deceased Tikaram was traveling in the trolley

of the tractor, which was driven by the first

respondent in a high speed, rashly and negligently on

account of which the vehicle got turned down and the

tyre of tractor ran over Tikaram on account of which,

18

Page 19

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the

same. The following evidence is elicited from AW-2 in

his cross-examination by the lawyer of the Insurance

Company to the following effect;

“that at the time of accident he was carrying

paddy and he was one field away from the place

of accident and he reached there by running.

Before him, several other persons also reached

the site of the accident and he was examined by

the Investigating Officer and the same is

accepted as true after understanding the same”.

AW-1, the father of the deceased boy has also

spoken about the manner in which accident took place

and his son Tikaram died and had produced the

documentary evidence referred to supra in justification

of the case pleaded by the appellants. In his

evidence, he has stated that Tikaram was sitting in the

trolley of the tractor and the tractor was driven by

19

Page 20

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

its driver rashly and negligently on account of which

the trolley turned down and his son sustained grievous

injuries and died. The suggestion put to AW-1 in his

cross-examination by the lawyer of the Insurance

Company to the following effect

“this is correct that when accident

took place I was at home. It is the incident of

5 p.m. when my son had gone to graze cattle. My

son was made to sit in the trolley by the

tractor wala.”

The lawyer of the Insurance Company has not challenged

the evidence of AW-2 that the deceased was traveling in

the trolley of the tractor and accident took place on

account of rash and negligent driving of the driver.

Therefore, the fact of accident that took place on

19.07.1992 at 5.00 p.m. is not challenged by the lawyer

of the Insurance Company at all. Apart from the said

fact, no rebuttal evidence adduced by the Insurance

Company before the Tribunal in the claim proceedings.

20

Page 21

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

It has also not obtained permission from the Tribunal

under Section 170(b) of the M.V. Act to contest the

case on the defence of the insured as the driver and

the insured both remained ex-parte in the proceedings

before the Tribunal and therefore, it could not have

contested the case on merits as held by this Court in

the case of National Insurance Company vs. Nicolletta

Rohtagi reported in 2002(7) SCC 456. It is also not

clear in the counter statement filed by the Insurance

Company before the Tribunal that the claim petition was

filed by the appellants on account of collusion between

them and respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver and the

owner of the vehicle respectively.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal should have considered both oral and documentary

evidence referred to supra and appreciated the same in

the proper perspective and recorded the finding on the

contentious issue No. 1 & 2 in the affirmative. But it

has recorded the finding in the negative on the above

21

Page 22

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

issues by adverting to certain statements of evidence

of AW-1 and referring to certain alleged discrepancies

in the FIR without appreciating entire evidence of AW-

1 and AW-2 on record properly and also not assigned

valid reasons in not accepting their testimony. The

Tribunal should have taken into consideration the

pleadings of the parties and legal evidence on record

in its entirety and held that the accident took place

on 19.07.1992, due to which Tikaram sustained grievous

injuries and succumbed to the same and the case was

registered by the Uniara Police Station under Sections

279 and 304-A, IPC read with Sections 133 and 181 of

the M.V. Act against the first and second respondents.

The registration of FIR and filing of the charge-sheet

against respondent Nos.1 & 2 are not in dispute,

therefore, the Tribunal should have no option but to

accept the entire evidence on record and recorded the

finding on the contentious issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour

of the appellants. Further, it should have held that

22

Page 23

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

the deceased son died in the tractor accident, driven

by first respondent rashly and negligently, but it has

answered the above contentious issue Nos. 1 & 2 in the

negative and therefore, we have to set aside the said

erroneous findings as the Tribunal has failed to

appreciate the entire evidence both oral and

documentary properly to answer the issue Nos.1 & 2 in

the affirmative. From the perusal of the evidence

elicited in the cross-examination of AW-1 – the father

and AW-2 who reached the spot immediately after the

accident, he had seen the accident and narrated that

the deceased boy had sustained grievous injuries in

the accident and succumbed to the same. The evidence

on record proved that the deceased sustained grievous

injuries in the accident on account of which he died.

The Insurance Company by cross-examining the witness

No. AW-2 has categorically admitted the accident, as

its counsel had put the suggestion to him the relevant

portion of which is extracted above, which portion of

23

Page 24

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

evidence clearly go to show that in the accident the

deceased died, but the Tribunal has failed to

appreciate the evidence of AW-2 and also the

documentary evidence referred to supra, while

recording the finding of fact on the contentious issue

No.1. The counter affidavit of respondent No.1 filed

in these proceedings cannot be relied upon by this

Court at this stage as he did not choose to appear

before the Tribunal, though he had filed statement of

counter and neither he nor the Insurance Company

adduced rebuttal evidence by obtaining permission from

the Tribunal under Section 170(b) of M.V. Act to avail

the defence of the insured respondent No.2, as the

Insurance Company has limited defence as provided

under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act. But on the

other hand, by reading the averments from the

paragraphs extracted from the affidavit of respondent

No.1, the driver would support the case of the

appellants.

24

Page 25

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

17. In our considered view, the Tribunal has ignored certain relevant facts and evidence on record while

considering the case of the appellants. The High Court

though it has got power to re-appreciate the pleadings

and evidence on record, has declined to do so and

mechanically endorsed the findings of fact on

contentious issue Nos.1 & 2 after referring to certain

stray sentences from the evidence of AW-1 and the FIR

and it has erroneously held that there is a

contradiction between the FIR, the claim petition and

the evidence of the appellants. It has concurred with

the finding of fact recorded on the contentious issues

and accepted dismissal of the petition. The concurrent

findings of fact are erroneous and invalid and

therefore, the same call for our interference in this

appeal. The approach of the High Court to the claim of

the appellants is very casual as it did not advert to

the oral and documentary evidence placed on record on

behalf of the appellants, particularly, in the absence

25

Page 26

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

of rebuttal evidence adduced by the Insurance Company,

hence the same is liable to set aside and accordingly

we set aside the same.

18. Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered together in favour of the appellants for the following reasons:-

The Tribunal having answered the contentious

issue No.1, against the appellants in its judgment the

same is concurred with by the High Court by assigning

erroneous reasons and it has affirmed dismissal of the

claim petition of the appellants holding that the

accident did not take place on account of the rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the

first respondent and therefore the contentious issue

Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative against the

appellants and it has not awarded compensation in

favour of the appellants.

Since we have set aside the findings and reasons

recorded by both the Tribunal and the High Court on

the contentious issue Nos.1 & 2 by recording our

26

Page 27

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

reasons in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment

and we have answered the point in favour of the

appellants and also examined the claim of the

appellants to award just and reasonable compensation

in favour of the appellants as they have lost their

affectionate 10 year old son. For this purpose, it

would be necessary for us to refer to Second Schedule

under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, at clause No.6

which refers to notional income for compensation to

those persons who had no income prior to accident. The

relevant portion of clause No.6 states as under:

“6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident:

.............. (a) Non-earning persons – Rs.15,000/- p.a.”

The aforesaid clause of the Second Schedule to

Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, is considered by this

Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of

27

Page 28

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

Bihar & Ors.2, while examining the tortuous liability of the tort-feasor has examined the criteria for

awarding compensation for death of children in

accident between age group of 10 to 15 years and held

in the above case that the compensation shall be

awarded taking the contribution of the children to the

family at Rs.12,000/- p.a. and multiplier 11 has been

applied taking the age of the father and then under

the conventional heads the compensation of Rs.25,000/-

was awarded. Thus, a total sum of Rs.1,57,000/- was

awarded in that case. After noting the submission made

on behalf of TISCO in the said case that the

compensation determined for the children of all age

groups could be double as in its view the

determination made was grossly inadequate and the

observation was further made that loss of children is

irrecoupable and no amount of money could compensate

the parents. Having regard to the environment from

which the children referred to in that case were 2 (2001) 8 SCC 197

28

Page 29

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

brought up, their parents being reasonably well-placed

officials of TISCO, it was directed that the

compensation amount for the children between the age

group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other

words, it should be Rs.1.5 lakhs to which under the

conventional heads a sum of Rs.50,000/- should be

added and thus total amount in each case would be Rs.2

lakhs. Further, in the case referred to supra it has

observed that in so far as the children of age group

between 10 to 15 years are concerned, they are all

students of Class VI to Class X and are children of

employees of TISCO and one of the children was

employed in the Company in the said case having regard

to the fact the contribution of the deceased child was

taken Rs.12,000/- p.a. appears to be on the lower side

and held that the contribution of such children

should be Rs.24,000/- p.a. In our considered view,

the aforesaid legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa's case with all fours is applicable to the

29

Page 30

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

facts and circumstances of the case in hand having

regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years'

old, who was assisting the appellants in their

agricultural occupation which is an undisputed fact.

We have also considered the fact that the rupee value

has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the

notional income of the non-earning member prior to the

date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Further,

the deceased boy, had he been alive would have

certainly contributed substantially to the family of

the appellants by working hard. In view of the

aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for

us to take his notional income at Rs.30,000/- and

further taking the young age of the parents, namely

the mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of

accident, by applying the legal principles laid down

in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3, the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and

3 (2009) 6 SCC 121

30

Page 31

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

50,000/- under conventional heads towards loss of love

and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in

Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas4, which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa's case and the said amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the

death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this

case also we award Rs.50,000/- under conventional

heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons the said

amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation

to be awarded in favour of the appellants. The said

amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. by

applying the law laid down in the case of Municipal Council of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy5, for the reason that the Insurance Company has been contesting the claim of the appellants from

1992-2013 without settling their legitimate claim for

nearly about 21 years, if the Insurance Company had

awarded and paid just and reasonable compensation to

4 (1994) 2 SCC 176 5 (2011) 14 SCC 481

31

Page 32

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

the appellants the same could have been either

invested or kept in the fixed deposit, then the amount

could have earned five times more than what is awarded

today in this appeal. Therefore, awarding 9% interest

on the compensation awarded in favour of the

appellants is legally justified.

19. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

I) The appeal is allowed and the impugned

judgments and awards of both the Tribunal and

High Court are set aside.

II) The awarded amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with

interest at the rate of 9% per annum should be

paid to the appellants from the date of filing

of the application till the date of payment.

III) We direct the Insurance Company to issue

the demand draft drawn on any Nationalized

Bank by apportioning the compensation amount

32

Page 33

C.A @.S.L.P.(C)No.21139 of 2011 -

equally with proportionate interest and send

it to the appellants within six weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

….........................................J. [G.S. SINGHVI]

...................J

[V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi, August 26, 2013.

33

KISHAN GOPAL Vs LALA .