The Supreme Court in the case Meena Devi vs Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto observed and has stated that ‘just compensation’ exceeding claimed amount can be awarded in motor accident compensation claim cases.
The bench comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice JK Maheshwari observed that the Tribunal/Court ought to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record.
In the present case, a twelve-year-old child, while playing in front of his house, was dashed by the Commander Jeep and while being taken to a hospital died on the way. Thus, a Claim Petition under Sections 140, 166 read with Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest was filed by the mother of the deceased child. The compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lump sum, has been granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granted. An appeal was made, wherein 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.
Thereafter, the mother-claimant approached the Apex Court contending that MACT and the High Court have not granted any amount under the head “loss of prospective happiness” and other conventional heads and the amount being granted under the head of loss of dependencies is inadequate. Further, the valuation of claim is immaterial to grant just and reasonable compensation. An error has been committed by restricting the compensation equal to valuation of Claim Petition, it was contended.
It had been noted by the Court that the deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Further, the court noticed in the case Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others, wherein the compensation has been calculated treating Rs. 30,000/- as notional income which includes the future prospects in place of Rs. 15,000/- as being specified in the IInd Schedule of the M.V. Act and applying the multiplier as specified in the judgment in the case Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another. The court stated and while applying the said decision, the court enhanced the amount of compensation to 5,00,000/-.
The Court stated that 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, wherein it was observed that under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. Further, the Tribunal/Court ought to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. It stated that less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.
