SHIKHABALA ROY Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question raised by the claimants is that the notional monthly income of the victim was pegged at an abysmally low rate.

(2.) The matter was governed by Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. That implied that the second Schedule to the Act introduced by way of an amendment in 1994 had to be adhered to. Though the second Schedule remained unaltered between 1994 and 2008 when the incident took place, it is reasonable to expect that such notional amount ought to have been revised periodically. In this context, reference may be made to a recent Constitution Bench judgment reported at ( National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi , 2017 16 SCC 680). While substantially endorsing the view expressed in Sarla Verma, the Constitution Bench provided for enhanced amounts on account of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The judgment also provided that the amounts indicated on account of the three heads should be revised at the rate of 10% every three years.

(3.) On a parity of reasoning, the amount indicated in the second Schedule to the Act in 1994 ought to have been increased at the rate of 10% every three years so that by 2008 it ought to have been enhanced by 50%. In other words, Rs.15,000/- in 1994 ought to have become Rs.22,500/- in 2008 after a lapse of 14 years from the time when the relevant Schedule was introduced in the statute.