AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Palanivelu, J.—Transport Corporation has tiled this appeal, aggrieved over the award, made in M.C.O.P. No. 123 of 1998 on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udumalapet, in awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,86,000/-as against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000/-, for the death
of a minor child, by name, Mohanapriya.
Respondents/claimants 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased Mohanapriya, who was aged about 3 years at the time of accident. First respondent
Chinnasamy was the first informant, as regards the accident. In Ex.A-1, copy of the F.I.R., he stated that on 27.09.1997, at about 12.00 Noon,
while his daughter was playing outside his house, a bus belonging to the appellant Corporation dashed against her, due to which she got into an
unconscious condition. Then, the child was removed to Government Hospital, Udumalpet, where she died. He reiterates the contents of the F.I.R.,
in his oral evidence.
P.W. 2, who claimed to have witnessed the accident, deposed that he was running a tea stall near Chinnakumarapalayam Bus Stop; the bus was
driven in a rash and negligent manner, due to which it dashed against the child, causing her serious injuries, and that the driver of the bus was
responsible for the accident.
R.W. 1, driver of the offending vehicle, stated that he did not notice the bus hitting the injured and that he came to know about the accident the
next day.
When the above said oral testimonies are carefully analysed, it comes to light that due to reckless driving of the driver, the accident took place.
Ignoring the defence raised in the counter, which goes to the effect that while the said Mohanapriya was coming along the road, the driver drove
the vehicle in a low speed, however, the child dashed against the bus and received injuries, the driver deposed as though he was completely
unaware of the accident. Taking into account the oral evidence adduced by P.W. 2, it has to be held that the driver was responsible for the
accident.
The appellant Corporation very much assails the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal, contending that it is excessive.
The bottom line contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was a tender child of three years alone and, hence, the
grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,86,000/- would not conform to the settled legal principles.
The Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and deducting 1/3, assessed the dependency at Rs. 10,000/-
. Applying multiplier 15, the total loss of income for parents was calculated at Rs. 1,50,000/-. Further, on account of mental agony and pain and
suffering, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each was awarded and towards funeral expenses, a further sum of Rs. 6,000/- was granted.
Learned Counsel for the appellant garners support from a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kaushlya Devi v. Shri Karan Arora and
Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2479 of 2007 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 16500 of 2005), CDJ Law Journal, which framed the guidelines to assess the
compensation in case of death of a tender child, wherein, after referring to various authorities on the subject and applying the principles laid down
in State of Haryana and Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others, , the Hon''ble Apex Court held as follows:
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.
Guided by the principles contained in the above said decision, it is to be borne in mind that there would be no actual pecuniary benefit derived
by the parents during a child''s lifetime. But, this will not necessarily bar the parents'' claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim, provided that
the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit, if the child had lived. Further, it would be more impossible to
assess the future loss of income in case of tender children.
It is common knowledge that till a stage is reached by a child so as to enable him/her to earn for self, the contribution to his/her parents could
not be ascertained. Till such stage, the parents have to maintain the children and spend considerable amount towards education and settling of the
child in the society, so as to make him/her to earn. One could not imagine what would be the academic career and future avocation of a child,
while the individual is in tender age. The uncertainties in life should also be taken into consideration at the time of assessing compensation in fatal
cases, as regards the tender age of children.
P.W. 1, father of the deceased child, would depose that since his wife had undergone laproscopic surgery, it was impossible for her to give
birth to another child.
On a perusal of F.I.R., it is seen that the respondents/claimants have got another male child. However, there is no convincing evidence on
record to show that there is no possibility for second respondent to conceive again.
Learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the Tribunal has properly assessed the quantum of compensation, which does not
suffer from any legal infirmity. He placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender
and Others, , in which also, the principles formulated in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Ors. referred to supra, were applied. In the
said decision, while the age of the deceased child was nine years, it was held that the quantum of compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- assessed by the
Tribunal was more proper and it would meet the ends of justice.
Following the guidelines set out in the above said decision, it is to be held in this case also, that the decision taken by the Tribunal is correct.
Learned Counsel for the respondents also refers to a decision, rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Arumugham and Anr. v. The
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Ltd. 2007 (1) TN MAC 536, in which the guidelines formulated in U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, , and Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan 2005 ACJ 99 (SC), were followed and
it was held that compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- payable to the parents of the deceased, aged two years, was justified. The operative portion of
the said decision reads thus:
...Applying the said principle to the facts of the instant case also, this Court is of the considered view that uniform application of the multiplier
''15'' for the children up to the age of 15 irrespective of the age group shall not be desirable. In this case, the age of the deceased-Marikkannu can
be fixed at 2 years in accordance with the particulars found in Ex. A.2. For the children of tender age group, we can apply a small multiplier than
''15''. Taking into account the age of the deceased and the tact that the deceased was the sixth child of the appellants/claimants, this Court is of the
considered view that applying the multiplier ''12'' in the instant case shall be reasonable. If the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- is multiplied by the
selected multiplier ''12'', we get Rs. 1,80,000/-representing the reasonable amount of compensation that should have been awarded as
compensation to the appellants/claimants....
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and following the principles laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court
comes to a definite conclusion that the Tribunal has awarded a just compensation as per law and, hence, there is no need to dislodge the
observations made by the Tribunal.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. The balance amount is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents.