Ravinder Kaur and Another vs Roop Lal and Others

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants against the award dated 18.3.1994 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as the ''Tribunal'') in M.A.C. Case No. 116 of 1992, Ravinder Kaur and

Anr. v. Roop LaL etc. for enhancement of compensation granted on account of death of their son Amandeep Singh @ Happy aged about 4 years

in a motor vehicular accident.

The claimant-appellants in their claim petition stated that the deceased was the only male child and that they have no capacity to produce

another child.

The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was the owner and respondent No. 2 was the driver, whereas respondent No. 3 was

insurer of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HPS-4794. They contested the claim petition filed by the claimant and on the pleadings of

the parties, following issues were framed:

Whether the accident in question took place because of rash and negligent driving of respondent driver? OPP

If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount, if any, are petitioners in each case entitled to as compensation and from whom? OPP

Relief.

On issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver. On issue

No. 2, the learned Tribunal by relying upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Bimla Devi etc. v. National Insurance Co. and Anr. II (1988)

ACC 522 (FB) : (1988) 94 P.L.R. 301 was pleased to hold that in case of a child between 5-9 years, there is not much scope for evaluating the

multiplier exactly but at the same time reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefits in the future is not totally ruled out. It was further held by the

Full Bench that certain Courts have computed the dependency for these children also, but by relying upon the observations of the Supreme Court,

it was concluded that it was a mere guess work and, therefore, it was not correct to proceed to compute mathematically the future damages when

the, annual dependency is likely to be a pure guess. Keeping in view the said judgments, the claimant were granted a sum of Rs. 30, 000 to be

shared equally by both the claimants. The interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation was also granted. The share of

Ravinder Kaur claimant was further directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank in some highest interest bearing scheme.

The learned Counsel for the claimant-appellants by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Major R.S. Rawat and Another Vs. Tilak Raj and

Others, claimed that as the son of the appellants had high prospects of studying up to the highest level and further the parents have been deprived

to get love and affection of the child during the lifetime, claimed a sum of Rs. 2 lacs as was granted in that case.

I have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants and also taken note of the fact that the evidence had been brought on

record and that the deceased was the only son of the claimant Ravinder Kaur and due to injuries suffered by her, there was no possibility of her

getting another child. However, there is no other evidence on record for assessment of the compensation payable to the claimants on account of

death of the minor child who was 4 years old. Therefore, for the purpose of assessment of compensation, it would be safe to rely upon the

judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme

Court was pleased to assess the compensation payable on account of death of a child in the age group of 5 to 9 years. Para 11 of the said

judgment reads as under:

So far as the award of compensation in case of children are concerned, Mr. Justice Chandrachud, has divided them into two groups, first group

between the age group of 5 to 10 years and the second group between the age group of 10 to 15 years. In case of children between the age group

of 5 to 10 years, a uniform sum of Rs. 50,000 has been held to be payable by way of compensation, to which conventional figure of Rs. 25,000

has been added and as such to heirs of the 14 children, a consolidated sum of Rs. 75,000 each, has been awarded. So far as the children in the

age group of 10 to 15 years, there are 10 such children, who died on the fateful day and having found their contribution to the family at Rs. 12,000

per annum, 11 multiplier has been applied, particularly, depending upon the age of the father and then the conventional compensation of Rs.

25,000 has been added to each case and, consequently, the heirs of each of the deceased above 10 years of age, have been granted

compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,57,000 each. In case of the death of, an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its

parents during the child''s life-time. But this will not necessarily bar the parents'' claim and prospective loss will found a valid claim provided that 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 Ry v. Jenkins 1913 AC I and Lord Atkinson said thus:

...all this 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 m 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.

At the same time, it must be held that a mere speculative possibility of benefit is not sufficient. Question whether there exists a reasonable

expectation of pecuniary advantage is always a mixed question of fact and law. There are several decided cases on this point, providing the

guidelines for determination of compensation in such cases, but we do not think it necessary for us to advert, as the claimants had not adduced any

materials on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefits, which the parents expected. In case of a bright and healthy boy, his performances in

the school, it would be easier for the authority to arrive at the compensation amount, which may be different from another sickly, unhealthy, rickety

child and bad student, but as has been stated earlier, not an iota of material was produced before Mr. Justice Chandrachud to enable him to arrive

at just compensation in such case and, therefore, he has determined the same on an approximation. Mr. Nariman, appearing for the TISCO, on his

own, submitted that the compensation determined for the children of age groups could be doubled, as in his views also, the determination made is

grossly inadequate. Loss of a child to the parents is irrecoverable, and no amount of money could compensate the parents. Having regard to the

environment from which these children were brought, their parents being reasonably well placed officials of the Tata Iron and Steel Company, and

on considering the submission of Mr. Nariman, we would direct that the compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 to 10

years should be three times. In other words, it should be Rs. 1.5 lakh, to which the conventional figure of Rs. 50,000 should be added and thus the

total amount in each case would be Rs. 2.00 lakh. So far as the children between the age group of 10 to 15 years are concerned, they are all

students of Class VI to Class X and are children of employees of TISCO. The TISCO itself has a tradition that every employer can get one of his

child employed in the company. Having regard to these facts, in their case, the contribution of Rs. 12,000 per annum appears to us to be on the

lower side and in our considered opinion, the contribution should be Rs. 24,000 and instead of 11 multiplier, the appropriate multiplier would be of

Therefore, the compensation, so calculated on the aforesaid basis should be worked out to Rs. 3.60 lakh to which an additional sum of Rs.

50,000 has to be added, thus making the total amount payable at Rs. 4.10 lakh for each of the claimants of the aforesaid deceased children.

Therefore, in view of the above pronouncement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, it would be safe to assess the compensation payable to the

claimant-appellants at Rs. 2 lakh. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 2 lakh. The claimants shall also be entitled to

interest @ 7% per annum on the amount so awarded from the date of the claim petition till realisation.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the above said terms.