# KURVAN ANSARI ALIAS KURVAN ALI & ANR v. SHYAM KISHORE MURMU & ANR

- **Citation:** [2021] 7 S.C.R. 366
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-11-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6902 of 2021
- **Bench:** R. Subhash Reddy, Hrishikesh Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kurvan-ansari-alias-kurvan-ali-anr-v-shyam-kishore-murmu-anr-34915
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

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

## Text

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 maternal grandparents' house, a motorcycle
has dashed him causing grievous injuries resulting in his death. The said
vehicle was driven by one Mr. Sunil Gurum and owned by respondent
No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2.
4. On account of the said accident which resulted the death of the
child of the claimants, they filed a Claim Petition under Section 163-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation. Before the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, it was the case of the claimants that the
accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the offending motorcycle; the deceased boy was aged about 7 years at
the time of accident and he was studying in Class-II. The Tribunal by
appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, has come to the
conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the motorcycle's driver viz., Sunil Gurum. The Tribunal, considering
notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum, by applying
multiplier '15', awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest @6%
per annum from the date of judgment. Since the driver of the offending
motorcycle Mr. Sunil Gurum was not possessing valid driving licence at
the time of accident, the Tribunal directed respondent No. 2 -Insurance
Company to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the
same from its owner.
5. Pleading contributory negligence, the insurance company had
preferred M.A. No. 115 of 2011, for enhancement of compensation, the
claimants have preferred M.A. No. 66 of 2011, before the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
6. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the
appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and partly allowed the appeal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
369
preferred by the claimants by awarding a further sum of Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses. Thus, it is held that the appellants are entitled
to a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards compensation with interest as awarded
by the Tribunal from the date of filing Claim Petition.
7. We have heard Sri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants,
and Sri V.S. Chopra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - Insurance
Company.
8. Sri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants, mainly
contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as confirmed
by the High Court is on lower side and is not just and fair. The learned
counsel has contended that the compensation was awarded by assuming
income of the deceased notionally at Rs.15,000/- per annum as per
Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is applicable to the
claims made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is
submitted that the notional income of Rs.15,000/- was fixed as early as
in the year 1994 and somehow, the same is continued in the statute
without any amendment in spite of repeated directions by this Court. It
is submitted that in view of the provision under Section 163-A(3) of the
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, though it was obligatory on the part of the
Government to amend Schedule-II, same as fixed in the year 1994,
continued since then. Thus, it is submitted that the notional income as
fixed, is to be considered by taking into account increase in the cost of
living. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants
has relied on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Puttamma &
Ors. v. K.L. Narayana Reddy & Anr.1, R.K. Malik & Anr. v. Kiran
Pal & Ors.2 and Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & Ors.3.
9. On the other hand, Sri V.S. Chopra, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company, has submitted that there are no
grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court and
placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra
Singh & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors.4.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have
perused the impugned judgment and the other material placed on record.
1 (2013) 15 SCC 45
2 (2009) 14 SCC 1
3 (2014) 1 SCC 244
4 (2020) 7 SCC 256
KURVAN ANSARI ALIAS KURVAN ALI & ANR. v. SHYAM
KISHORE MURMU & ANR. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
11. As the claim was made under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, since the deceased child was not an earning member,
the Tribunal has considered notional income as per Schedule-II for the
purpose of fixing compensation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation
by taking notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum by
applying multiplier '15', awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- towards
loss of dependency with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
judgment. When the appeals are preferred by the Insurance Company
as well as the appellants herein, by the impugned common judgment, the
High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company,
and in the appeal preferred by the claimants, while confirming the
compensation awarded for loss of dependency at Rs.2,25,000/-, has
awarded a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
accordingly granted a total compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest
@6% per annum payable by respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company
and by permitting it to recover the same from Respondent No. 1 - owner
of the motorcycle.
12. In the judgment in the case of Puttamma & Ors.1, this Court
has observed 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/- (Rupees one
lakh only) towards compensation for the non-earning children up to the
age of 5 (five) years old and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh
fifty thousand only) for the non-earning persons of more than 5 (five)
years old.
13. In the case of R.K. Malik & Anr.2 also, this Court has
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 & Anr.3 where the deceased
was a ten years old child, this Court has fixed his notional income at
Rs.30,000/- per annum.
14. In this case, it is to be noted that the accident was on
06.09.2004. In spite of repeated directions, Schedule-II is not yet
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
371
amended. Therefore, fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum
for non-earning members is not just and reasonable.
15. In view of the judgments in the cases in Puttamma & Ors.1,
R.K. Malik & Anr.2 and Kishan Gopal & Anr.3, we are of the view
that it is a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account
the inflation, devaluation of the rupee and cost of living. In view of the
same, the judgment in the case of Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 relied on
by the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company would
not render any assistance to the case of the insurance company.
16. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to take notional
income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand
only) per annum. Accordingly, when the notional income is multiplied
with applicable multiplier '15', as prescribed in Schedule-II for the claims
under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, it comes to
Rs.3,75,000/- (Rs.25,000/- x Multiplier 15) towards loss of dependency.
The appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards
filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the
appellants are entitled to the following amounts towards compensation:
(a) Loss of Dependency :
Rs. 3,75,000-00
(b) Filial Consortium
:
Rs. 80,000-00
 (Rs.40,000/- x 2)
(c) Funeral Expenses
:
Rs. 15,000-00
------------------
 Total
:
Rs. 4,70,000-00
17. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for a sum of
Rs.4,70,000/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy thousand only) towards total
compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim
petition till the date of realisation. The enhanced compensation shall be
apportioned between the appellants as ordered by the Tribunal. The entire
compensation shall be paid to the appellants by respondent No. 2 -
Insurance Company, and we keep it open to the Insurance Company to
recover the same from respondent No. 1 - owner of the motorcycle by
initiating appropriate proceedings as the motorcycle was driven by the
KURVAN ANSARI ALIAS KURVAN ALI & ANR. v. SHYAM
KISHORE MURMU & ANR. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
372
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
driver who was not possessing valid driving licence on the date of the
accident.
18. Accordingly, this Civil Appeal is allowed partly with directions
as indicated above. No order as to costs.
Devika Gujral
Appeal partly allowed.