AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—This is a claimants'' appeal for enhancement of compensation. Heard learned counsel for parties.
The only question that would arise for determination in this appeal is:
Whether the tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 180,000/- for the death of child of claimants aged about 6 years?
In a decision reported in R.K. Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal and Others, the Supreme Court has held:
Where the deceased boy is aged about 10-18 years, compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- (Rs. 15,000 x 15) shall be awarded towards loss of dependency and compensation of Rs. 75,000/- towards ''loss of expectancy of life, pain and suffering'' and compensation of Rs. 75,000/- towards ''future prospects''.
In the aforestated judgment, the Supreme Court has held:
In view of discussion made hereinbefore, it is quite clear the claim with regard to future prospect should have been addressed by the courts below. While considering such claims, child''s performance in school, the reputation of the school, etc., might be taken into consideration. In the present case, records shows that the children were good in studies and studying in a reasonably good school. Naturally, their future prospect would be presumed to be good and bright. Since they were children, there is no yardstick to measure the loss of future prospects of these children. But as already noted, they were performing well in studies, natural consequence supposed to be a bright future. In the case of Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, and M.S. Grewal and Another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and Others, , the Apex Court recognised such future prospects as basis and factor to be considered. Therefore, denying compensation towards future prospects seems to be unjustified. Keeping this in background, facts and circumstances of the present case, and following the decision in Lata Wadhwa (supra) and M.S. Grewal (supra), we deem it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs. 75,000/- (which is roughly half of the amount given on account of pecuniary damages) as compensation for the future prospects of the children, to be paid to each claimant within one month of the date of this decision. We would like to clarify that this amount i.e. Rs. 75,000/- is over and above what has been awarded by the High Court.
In the case on hand, claimants have not adduced evidence to prove that deceased child had been admitted to school. Therefore, claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- (Rs. 15,000 x 15) towards ''loss of dependency'' and a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. Thus, claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
The learned counsel for insurance company has brought to my notice the order passed by this court in MFA 8370/2011 dated 03.04.2013 (by Mr. Justice N. Ananda) to contend that 1/3rd of the amount towards ''loss of dependency'' has to be deducted in terms of Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The judgment made by Supreme Court reported in R.K. Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal and Others, was not brought to the notice of this court while deciding MFA 8370/2011 dated 03.04.2013. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for insurance company that compensation shall be awarded in this case by following judgment made in MFA 8370/2011 dated 03.04.2013, cannot be accepted.
In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is accepted in part.
(ii) The impugned award is modified by enhancing compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-.
(iii) The rest of the impugned award as it relates to rate of interest, period of accrual of interest and ratio of payment and investment is confirmed.