Smt. Shanti Devi vs Sh. Ashok Kumar and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 20th February 1998 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

On the fateful day of 9th July 1988, the deceased Master Gaurav Talwar, aged about 6 years was going on a scooter with his Father Sh. Subhash Chander Talwar and mother Smt. Shanti Devi. They were going from Azad Market to their residence at Malviya Nagar. At about 2 P.M. at Tughlak Road, a Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HYU 6687 came in a fast speed from the front, in order to overtake rashly; the bus came on the wrong side of the road and rammed the passengers riding the scooter. Sh. Talwar, his wife and his son sustained fatal injuries and they died on the same day in the Hospital where they were taken from the accident site.

A claim petition was filed on 22nd October 1988 and an award was made on 20th February 1988. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. O.P. Mannie counsel for the appellants has assailed the said award on quantum of damages. Counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal has erred in by awarding a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000. It was also alleged by the counsel that the tribunal did not consider the fact that the deceased was a smart and a brilliant boy and had a brilliant academic career; he had scored above 90% marks in his 1st class result. The counsel also urged that the deceased would have progressed in his life and there was a reasonable expectation of the deceased becoming a successful electronic engineer and earning a minimum sum of Rs. 3,000/- pm, had he not died his untimely death. It was further argued that the deceased would have been a support to his sister and helping hand to his brother and source of inspiration and love and affection for his grandmother. Due to high rates of inflation the deceased would have earned much more in near future and the tribunal also failed in appreciating the fact that even the minimum wages are revised twice in an year and hence, the deceased would have earned much more in his life span. The counsel also raised the contention that the loss of dependency shall be calculated as per the multiplier method and the income of the child shall be assessed at Rs. 15,000/- P.A. and a multiplier of 15 shall be applicable to the same. 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. The counsel also raised the contention that the rate of interest allowed by the tribunal is on the lower side and the tribunal should have allowed simple interest @ 24% per annum in place of only 12% per annum considering that the value of Rupee is dwindling due to high rate of inflation.

Nobody has been appearing 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 more difficult. 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 and siblings is capable of mathematical computation.

This case pertains to the year 1988 and at that time II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act was not brought on the statute books. 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. 4,10,000/-.

As regards the future prospects nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty as regards a child. Therefore, the tribunal committed no error in not granting future prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In the instant case, the appellants claimants had brought on record the mark sheet of class 1st, according to which, the deceased child was a bright student. In case of a child below 10 years there are abound uncertainties and therefore, following the path of Lata Wadhwa''s case (supra), I feel that the compensation towards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages should be awarded at Rs. 2 lacs.

As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of 12% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the same should be enhanced to 24% p.a., I feel that the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal is not/just and fair and requires no/interference. No rate of interest is fixed u/s 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest is awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money, which ought to have been paid to him. Time and again the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the rate of interest to be awarded should be just and fair depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and taking in to consideration relevant factors including inflation, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time and other economic factors. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the award regarding award of interest @ 12% pa by the tribunal and the same is not interfered with.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/- from Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition with realisation and the same should be paid to the appellants in equal proportion by the respondent insurance company.

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