Mahendra Kumar and Another vs Kartik Ram and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants is heard on admission.

The appellants, unfortunate parents of deceased Om Prakash are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Balod, Distt. Durg (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 27-11-2008, passed in Claim Case No. 25/2008.

The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 5,25,000/- by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of their son Om Prakash, aged about 5 years in the motor accident on 4-3-2008, when he was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 07 ZC-3513, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants pleaded that Om Prakash was their only son and he would have extended support to them in their old age.

The driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle Truck contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that deceased child was negligent in crossing the road and as such was responsible for the accident. The insurer took the further plea that the driver of the Truck was not holding a valid driving licence and the Truck was being plied in breach of the policy conditions.

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that the claimants'' son Om Prakash died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 4-3-2008; the driver of the offending vehicle Truck was responsible for the accident; and as the offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with National Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal relying upon the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim and Ors. reported in 2007 (4) TAC 385 (SC), awarded compensation of Rs. 52,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs. 52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low as deceased child Om Prakash would have supported to the claimants in their old age.

Admittedly, appellants'' son Om Prakash was aged about five years on the date of the accident. The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim and Ors. (supra), while considering the compensation awardable in the said case where a child aged about seven years lost his life in the accident observed in Paras 7,8 and 9:

In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by the parents during the child''s life-time. But this will not necessarily bar the parents'' claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim provided the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. v. Jenkins (1913) AC 1, and Lord Atkinson said 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 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." [See Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, ].

This Court in Lata Wadhwa''s case (supra), while computing compensation made distinction between deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to l0 years and age group of 10 to 15 years.

In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life, are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment of estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation.

Now, reverting to the present case, the compensation of Rs. 52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), and the fact that the claimant''s child Om Prakash was aged five years only on the date of the accident, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.