Mehar Singh and Another vs Mohinder and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The compensation awarded to the parents of Pritam Singh deceased warrents no interference in appeal.

On January 24, 1982, Pritam Singh, a nine years'' old student was sitting on a tractor when it met with an accident with the Truck UTX-2203 coming from the opposite direction. Pritam Singh died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in this accident. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded as compensation to the parents of the deceased for the death of their son besides another Rs. 2000/-which was awarded to the appellant Mehar Singh for the injuries sustained by him, in this accident.

The evidence on record shows that Pritam Singh deceased was only 9 years of age at the time of the accident. He was a student studying in the 2nd Class. The parents of the deceased are agriculturists and their source of income comes, from cultivation of the land.

In seeking enhanced compensation, counsel, for the claimants, in the first instance, contended that the proper multiplier here was not ''16'' as applied by the Tribunal, but ''20''. Reliance in this behalf being placed upon the judgment of this Court in Bansi Lal and Anr. v. Sohan Singh and Ors. 1987 (1) PLR 512 : 1987 (II) ACC 499. A reading of this judgment would, however, show that it bears no resemblance to the present case, in that, the deceased there was a cook of the Punjab Police and aged 27 years and the claimants were his widow and children. In other words, that was a case of compensation in respect of a person gainfully employed, unlike here with the deceased being nine years. Old student who would undoubtedly be an expense to the family until he completed his education and then took up some gainful employment, which was still several years away. In these circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for having adopted the multiplier that it did.

Reliance was next sought to be placed on the judgment of this Court in Smt. Urmila Joshi and Ors. v. Makhan Singh and Ors. 1987 (1) PLR 56, where in respect of a 13 years'' old student a sum of Rs. 30,000/- had been awarded as compensation to the parents. The principles for assessing compensation in such cases as Laid down therein are in the following terms:

In assessing the compensation to be awarded to the parents for the financial loss suffered by them, on account of death of their minor child, regard must be had to what the parents were likely to have spent upon the maintenance and education of the child till such time as the child came to be gainfully employed. What the child is likely to have done or become in later life, would depend largely upon the financial status and social standing of the parents. The type of education that the parents were capable of providing to the child, would be another relevant consideration besides the career that the child, in his circumstances, could be expected to take up. In this regard, it would be pertinent to take note of the achievements and aptitude of the child, as may have been revealed in school or otherwise. In other words, what the parents, as claimants, need to establish is the reasonable probability of pecuniary loss on account of the death of their child and this, in turn, must be based upon materials and circumstances which are real and not mere wishful thinking or fanciful. Each case has thus to be seen in the context of its own set of circumstances.

The deceased student in that case was 13 years old and was studying in the 8th standard. He was the son of a Professor in a Government College and evidence showed that he was a brilliant student and it was found that there was thus a real prospect of the child being well placed in life and thus in a position to support his parents in later life. In the case in hand, no such evidence is forthcoming. The deceased here was only in the Second Standard and came from a rural family of no substantial financial standing. There is no evidence that he was in any sense an above-average student.

Such thus being the circumstances of the claimant and the deceased, no occasion is provided here for awarding any enhanced compensation.

This appeal is accordingly hereby dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.