KALA @ KAMAKSHY Vs. S.SUBBIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two appeals by the very same appellant who was involved in an accident; in which the appellant herself suffered injuries; but turned fatal for her daughter. A number of claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal by various persons, including the appellant being the claimant in two such claim petitions. The accident occurred while the claimant was travelling in a car along with her daughter, who died in the accident. The car dashed against a tree and the passengers suffered grievous injuries. The Tribunal found negligence on the car driver and the vehicle was covered by a comprehensive policy. The appeals survive only insofar as enhancement claim of the claimants.

(2.) The minor child, who was killed in the accident, was aged 7 years. The accident occurred on 14.07.2002. The net annual income of the minor child was found to be Rs.15,000/- as per the structured formula of the Second Schedule of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for brevity " MV Act "]. 1/3rd was deducted for personal expenses and multiplier of 15 was applied. The learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant has a contention with respect to the multiplier to be applied as per the Second Schedule as also the annual income to be adopted in the case of a minor having less than 15 years age. The said contentions are anchored upon Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [2013 (2) KLT 304 ( SC)] and Kishan Gopal & Another v. Lala & Others [(2014) 1 SCC 244].

(3.) In Reshma Kumari, a three Judge Bench in a reference, in the operative portion of the decision considered the aspect of compensation to be awarded where the age of the deceased is upto 15 years. It was held that the same should be irrespective of the application under Section 166 or Section 163A . As to the multiplier to be applied, it was specifically noticed that the multiplier of 15 has to be applied for assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule, subject to correction as pointed out in column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr . [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. Sarla Verma is also pointed out to contend that the defects in the Schedule were noticed and as per the quantum of compensation to be awarded, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had corrected the multiplier and made it 20 from the 15 specified in the Second Schedule. With respect to the income aspect, though the Second Schedule provided an annual income of Rs.15,000/-, notionally for minors aged below 15 years, Kishan Gopal fixes it at Rs.30,000/-, is the contention.