# MEENA DEVI v. NUNU CHAND MAHTO @ NEMCHAND MAHTO & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 18 S.C.R. 449
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-10-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7255 of 2022
- **Bench:** Sanjiv Khanna, J. K. Maheshwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/meena-devi-v-nunu-chand-mahto-nemchand-mahto-ors-35836
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

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

## Text

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 without adding 'future prospect' while computing
the compensation. Reliance has further been placed on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and
others (2014) 1 SCC 244 wherein the compensation has been calculated
treating Rs. 30,000/- as notional income including future prospects in
place of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the IInd Schedule of the M.V. Act
and applying the multiplier as specified in the judgment of Sarla Verma &
Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC.
121. It is further contended that in case of death, just and reasonable
amount of compensation ought to be awarded along with interest as
permissible. It is urged that the valuation of the claim is immaterial to grant
just and reasonable compensation, however the High Court committed
error restricting the compensation equal to valuation of Claim Petition.
5. Mr. Anup Kumar and Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, Advocates have
filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. No
one appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, though notice was
served on them.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 urged that the compensation as awarded by the
MACT and High Court is just and proper, however supporting the findings,
as recorded by the two Courts, contended that the appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
MEENA DEVI v. NUNU CHAND MAHTO @ NEMCHAND
MAHTO & ORS. [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the findings, the liability of the Insurance Company is not in dispute and
only the quantum is questioned by the claimant. Therefore, on the point
of liability of respondent No. 4-Insurance Company, we approve the
finding of the High Court.
8. Reverting to computation of compensation in the facts of this
case, a child died in a road accident at the age of 12 years while playing
in front of his house. He was studying in 5th class in Nehru Academy,
Giridih Road, Jamtara, Dumri, however it is required to be seen how the
computation of compensation may be made. As per the ocular statement
given by her mother, it is clear that the deceased child was a brilliant
student of Class 5 and if he had not met with the accident, he would
have definitely become an officer in future. In the said factual matrix,
the compensation is required to be determined.
9. In the judgment of R.K. Malik (supra), 29 children going in a
school bus died by drowning in Yamuna River while the offending vehicle
fell down, breaking the railings of the bridge in a road accident, took
place in November, 1997. In the said case this Court held that the principle
for determination of the compensation may be observed applying the
IInd Schedule of M.V. Act and the appropriate multiplier considering the
age of parents. It has also been said that the claim with regard to the
future prospects should have been addressed by the Courts based on
the performance and the reputation of the school. In the said case, the
principles laid down by this Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa and
others vs. State of Bihar and others (2001)8 SCC 197 and M.S. Grewal
& another vs. Deep Chand Sood & others (2001)8 SCC 151 have
been followed and enhancement was made. In the case of Lata Wadhwa
(supra), it was clarified that the compensation may be awarded dividing
the children in the age groups of 5 to 10 and 10 to 15 years. It is held that
such grant of compensation will not necessarily bar the parents to claim
prospective loss and it will be valid. This Court also relied upon the
principles as laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of
Taff Vale Rly. Vs. Jankins 1913 AC 1, wherein Lord Atkinson observed
as thus:
"...all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary
benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite
true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact -
there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
453
reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent
from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts
without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first, that the
deceased earned money in the past and, second, that he or she
contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt,
pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence;
and the necessary inference can, I think, be drawn from
circumstances other than and different from them."
10. Thus relying upon the observation, it is said that in place of
issuing any guidelines for determination of compensation in case of
death of a child, it may be left open to be decided in the facts and
circumstances of each case. In the case of M.S. Grewal (supra), 14
school students died due to drowning in a river. This Court noticing
that the students were belonging to upper middle class background,
however awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.
Thereafter in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), a child aged about 10
years died in a road accident took place on 19.7.1992, this Court made
departure from the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act and accepted the notional
income of Rs. 30,000/- in place of Rs. 15,000/- applying the analogy
that the value of rupee has come down drastically since 1994 when
the notional income of Rs. 15000/- was fixed in IInd Schedule of the
MV Act. However accepting the notional income as Rs. 30,000/- and
as per the age of the parents i.e. 36 years, the loss of dependency was
calculated applying the multiplier of 15 at Rs. 4,50,000/- and a sum of
Rs. 50,000/- was awarded under conventional heads awarding a total
sum of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
11. Recently in the case of Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali &
another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another (2022) 1 SCC 317,
wherein a child aged about 7 years died in a road accident took place on
6.9.2004, this Court taking notional income as Rs. 25,000/-, applying the
multiplier of 15, calculated the loss of dependency as Rs. 3,75,000/- and
adding Rs. 55,000/- in conventional heads, awarded Rs. 4,70,000/-.
12. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the
cases of child death, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in
the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act has been enhanced on account of
devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date on
which the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional
income was treated as Rs. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra)
MEENA DEVI v. NUNU CHAND MAHTO @ NEMCHAND
MAHTO & ORS. [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
and Rs. 25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari (supra) in age group of 10 and 7
years respectively.
13. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the
age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down
in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) are aptly applicable to the facts of
the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the
deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and studying in
a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs. 30,000/-
including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the
decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the loss of dependency
comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and if we add Rs. 50,000/- in conventional heads,
then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/-. As per the
judgment of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been
awarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,00,000/- up to the
value of the Claim Petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation
is not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove.
Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and on
reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-,
the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-.
14. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision
of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh
and others (2003) 2 SCC 274, it was observed that under the MV Act,
there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation
exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award
'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the
evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in
the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation
exceeding the claimed amount.
15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation,
as awarded by the High Court is enhanced by Rs. 3,00,000/-, in addition.
The total amount of compensation would be Rs. 5,00,000/-. The enhanced
amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of Claim Petition till
realization. The due amount be paid by the respondent No. 4 - United
India Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from today.
16. The parties to bear their own costs.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal allowed.