Sh. Mahinder Singh and Another vs Sh. Mangal Singh and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 27/7/1998 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 22,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

That on 1.6.1984 at about 10.00 a.m. that Sh. Sunil Kumar (deceased) was crossing the road near Kanjhawala Hospital and he had almost crossed the entire road and reached near the pavement on the other side when a Truck bearing registration No. DGH-1163 driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently at a fast speed came from Village Ghevera side and hit against Sunil Kumar now deceased who received Fatal injuries and succumbed to his injuries which he received in this accident.

A claim petition was filed on 23/7/1984 and an award was passed on 27/7/1998. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. O.P. Mannie counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and applied the multiplier of 15 after making 1/3 rd deductions as per the II Schedule as the deceased was of 8 years of age and was studying in school. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal future increase in income as well. The counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium, mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants.

Nobody appeared for the respondents.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

There are some aspects of human life, which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendor of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape measure. The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non-earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork.

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 on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation.

This case pertains to the year 1984 and at that time II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act was not brought on the statute book. The said schedule came on the statute book in the year 1994 and prior to 1994 the law of the land was as laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, .

In Lata Wadhwa''s case (supra) while computing compensation, the Apex Court made distinction between deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. In the said case, the Apex Court had awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- as pecuniary damages and Rs. 50,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages to the claimants of the deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and in case of the children falling within the age group of 10 to 15 years, the Court decided that the multiplier method should be applied and the contribution of the children to the family was taken to be at Rs. 24,000/- pa and then a multiplier of 15 was applied and over and above that the conventional compensation of Rs. 50,000/- had been added to it, making the total compensation as Rs. 3,60,000/-.

In the light of the above discussion, I would assess the compensation in the instant case. It has come on record that the deceased at the time of the accident was of 8 years of age and was studying in school. The father of the deceased deposed that the deceased was a healthy and an intelligent child and was to be given higher education. But nothing has come on record to prove the income of the deceased.

The tribunal should have atleast assessed the income as that of an skilled workman on the basis of the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act prevailing at the time of the accident i.e. at Rs. 472/- pm.

Furthermore, it has been the consistent view of this Court that whenever aid of Minimum Wages Act is taken while computing income, then increase in minimum wages should also be considered. It is well settled that future prospects are not akin to increase in minimum wages. To neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, the minimum wages are increased from time to time. A perusal of the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act show that to neutralize increase in inflation and cost of living, minimum wages virtually double after every 10 years. For instance, minimum wages of skilled labourers as on 1.1.1980 was Rs. 320/- per month and same rose to Rs. 1,083/- per month in the year 1990. Meaning thereby, from year 1980 to year 1990, there there has been an increase of nearly 238% in the minimum wages. Thus, it could safely be assumed that income of the deceased would have doubled in the next 10 years.

Also, since in catena of cases the Apex Court has in similar circumstances made 1/3rd deductions. Therefore, 1/3rd deductions towards personal expenses is made.

Also, considering that this case pertains to the year 1992 and at that time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act had not been brought on the statute book. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 8 years and he is survived by her parents and the age of the father at the time of the accident was 41 years. In the facts of the present case I am of the view that after looking at the age of the claimants and the deceased and considering the multiplier applicable as per the II Schedule to the MV Act, the multiplier of 15 shall be applicable.

Also, compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded at Rs. 20,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and compensation towards loss of estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-.

On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 708/- after doubling Rs. 472/- to Rs. 944/- and after taking the mean of them. After making 1/3rd deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 472/- and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5,664/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 15 it comes to Rs. 84,960/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 84,960/-. After considering Rs. 40,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 1,24,960/-.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,24,960/- from Rs. 22,000/- with interest on the differential amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation and the same shall be paid to the appellants by the respondent insurance company in the same proportion as awarded by the tribunal within 30 days of this order.

With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed of.