SALAMUDDIN Vs. SOKAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 11 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 18 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. Main case All the above mentioned appeals shall stand decided by this common order as all the appeals arise out of the same award.

(2.) The appeals i.e. FAOs-2339 and 106-2015 pertained to the deaths of minor children of the age of 11 years and 12 years respectively. The appeals i.e. FAOs-9574 and 10626-2014 pertained to the injury cases involving children of the age of 14-15 years respectively. While praying for enhancement in the appeals i.e. FAOs-2339 and 106-2015, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the notional income of the minor deceased children has been taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum. The appellants, here are the parents of the deceased and have still not recovered from the mental shock. Their future hope stands demolished. It is further stated that the rate of interest awarded is also on the lower side. It should have been atleast 9% per annum. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Beet Nath Vs. Gulab Singh, FAO No. 159 of 2015 decided on 10.7.2017 as well as Sunita Devi and another Vs. Vijay Pal and others, 2018(2) LAW HERALD 1659 vide which the learned Single Judge of this Court took into account the notional income as Rs.50,000/- per annum. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company while vehemently opposing the enhancement by taking Rs.50,000/- per annum as the income submitted that the same would be against the well settled proposition of law as laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others, 2013(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 4346 wherein the notional income of the child was taken as Rs.30,000/-. Reference is also made to the second schedule provided under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act qua the fatal accident resulting in death cases to be taken as maximum Rs.5 lacs who is not earning.

(3.) A perusal of the judgment rendered in the case of Kishan Gopal's case (supra) shows that the said accident pertained to the year 1992. Taking the date of the accident, learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sunita Devi (supra) held Rs.50,000/- to be the fair income to be assessed of a child who is 15 years old. The discussion in the said case while taking the notional income as Rs.50,000/-, it was observed in para No.8 as under:- "Reference can also be made to a latest judgment of this Court in the case of Beet Nath and another vs. Gulab Singh and others (FAO No.159 of 2015) decided on July 10, 2017, wherein the notional income of the child who died in an accident which took place in the year 2012 was taken as Rs.50,000/-. It was observed in that case that in the case of Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others, 2013 (4) RCR (Civil) 276, wherein the notional income of a 10 years old child was taken as Rs.30,000/-, the year of the accident was 1992. But in that case, the accident had taken place in the year 2012 and the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 15 years. Since the value of rupee has come down drastically since the year 1992, the notional income in Beet Nath's case (supra) was taken as Rs.50,000"?.