Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gulzar Mohammad And Anr. vs Bikka And Ors. on 16 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000ACJ768
Author: Surinder Sarup
Bench: Surinder Sarup
JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.
1. This appeal at the instance of claimants is for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by award dated 4.2.1991, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Una. Against their claim of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakh) an amount of Rs. 37,000 was awarded besides interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the petition till the date of realisation for the death of their only son, Mohammad Hussain alias Raju aged 7 years in an accident of truck No. HPG 4281 owned by respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and insured with respondent No. 3, insurance company. The unfortunate accident had taken place on 14.7.1988 at village Dukki Do Sarka, Tehsil Amb, District Una, as a result of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1, the driver of the truck in question, as held by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in the impugned award against which no appeal has been filed by either of the respondents.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has come in the statement of claimant Gulzar Mohammad, who has appeared as PW 1, that the deceased was his only son besides three daughters, who were studying in 6th, 4th and 2nd class at the relevant time. He has further stated that his deceased son was aged 7 years and was studying in 2nd class at the time of accident. According to him, he was brilliant, intelligent and promising child. There is no rebuttal to this part of the evidence except that it is denied by Rajneesh Kumar alias Bikka, RW 1, in his cross-examination that deceased was school going. As per his statement, the deceased was 5/6 years old at the time of accident but in view of his ignorance, whether deceased was elder or younger to his sisters, his statement cannot be preferred to the statement of father of the deceased, Gulzar Mohammad, PW 1. Considering this evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has assessed the compensation at Rs. 37,000 which has been assailed by the claimants in the present appeal being on the lower side. No doubt, the question of determination of compensation for the death of young children is a difficult task yet it is to be determined by assessing the present value of the future contributions which the deceased child would have made to his parents for which the relevant factors would be the child's general level of intelligence or health, the family background, the father's or family profession, if any, the capacity of the parents to educate the child, etc. After arriving at the annual contribution to the family, the multiplier that has to be applied is not the one appropriate to the age of the child at its death but to the ages of the parents. In the case of the children above 5 years and below 10 years, it will not be possible to ascertain a suitable multiplier because of the fairly higher mortality rates during that period and it will be appropriate to arrive at conventional amounts.
3. Learned counsel for the claimants has cited number of judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts wherein besides laying down the principles for determining the amount of compensation for the death of a child, the amounts of compensation have also been determined for the death of children of tender ages. In C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhi Kuttan Nair 1970 ACJ 110 (SC), after considering number of judgments of English courts the principles governing the assessment of damages under Sections 1-A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act (Act XIII of 1855) were summed up as under in para 13:
Compulsory damages under Section 1 -A of the Act for wrongful death must be limited strictly to the pecuniary loss to the beneficiaries and that under Section 2, the measure of damages is the economic loss sustained by the estate. There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of the human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations but the amount recoverable depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. The life expectancy of the deceased or of the beneficiaries whichever is shorter is an important factor. Since the elements which go to make up the value of the life of the deceased to the designated beneficiaries are necessarily personal to each case, in the very nature of things, there can be no exact or uniform rule for measuring the value of human life. In assessing damages, the court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. As a general rule parents are entitled to recover the present cash value of the prospective service of the deceased minor child. In addition they may receive compensation for the loss of pecuniary benefits reasonably to be expected after the child attains majority. In the matter of ascertainment of damages, the appellate court should be slow in disturbing the findings reached by the courts below, if they have taken all the relevant facts into consideration.
By applying the above rules to the case before them in which they were determining the compensation for the death of a child, who was only 8 years old at the time of accident, it was observed in para 14:
How he would have turned out in life later is at best a guess. But there was a reasonable probability of his becoming a successful man in life as he was a bright boy in the school and his parents could have afforded him a" good education. It is not likely that he would have given any financial assistance to his parents till he was at least 20 years old. As seen from the evidence on record, his father was a substantial person. He was in business and his business was a prosperous one. As things stood he needed no assistance from his son. There is no material on record to find out as to how old were the parents of the deceased at the time of his death. Nor is there any evidence about their state of health. On the basis of the evidence on record, we are unable to come to the conclusion that the damages ordered by the High Court are inadequate.
The High Court had awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000 under Section 1-A and Rs. 1,000 under Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act for the accident which had taken place in the year 1956.
4. In Mangaldas Mohanlal Patel v. Union of India 1982 ACJ 426 (Gujarat), for death of 13 years old boy Rs. 54,000 was allowed as compensation. In Hassa Mai v. Jatti Ram 1986 ACJ 1121 (Rajasthan), an amount of Rs. 48,000 has been awarded as compensation besides interest at the rate of 12 per cent for the death of a child aged 9 years. In R. Ayyavu v. Gopinathan Nair 1991 ACJ 718 (Kerala), learned Judges of Kerala High Court have granted compensation of an amount of Rs. 48,000 for a boy aged 5, a student of 1 st standard holding that, "In determining the compensation payable to the parents on the death of a child, the present value of the future contribution which the deceased would have made to them is a legitimate head of claim accepted by all the courts in India. But the compensation cannot be confined to that head alone". It was also pointed out that the value of pecuniary loss should vary by the change of time and money value. In Uman Singh Gurung v. Seva Ram Dutta 1991 ACJ 1030 (Gauhati), the learned Judges of Gauhati High Court while awarding Rs. 60,000 as compensation for the death of a child of 7 years, held that, "Besides compensation for shock and pain caused to the parents, compensation for the loss of reasonable expectancy which the parents might had from their child is to be assessed keeping in view the family background and the academic and other activities and the achievements of the child".
5. In Kamta Prasad v. Jaggan & Co. 1996 ACJ 57 (Allahabad), the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court have awarded an amount of Rs. 30,150 for a girl aged 6 years, relying upon the observation of Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), that, "The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly, since the law values life and limb in free country in generous scales". Similarly, in Dev Chand v. Babulal Faujdar Bus Service 1997 ACJ 392 (MP), an amount of Rs. 50,000 was awarded as compensation for the death of a boy aged 5 years keeping in view that by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the amount of 'no fault liability' for the death of a person has been fixed at Rs. 50,000. In another judgment of Delhi High Court in Milan Chaudhuri v. Surinder Singh 1997 ACJ 493 (Delhi), an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded as compensation for the death of a boy aged 13 years, who was student of class 8th.
6. Keeping in view the law laid down and the amount of compensation awarded for the death of minors aged between 5 and 10 years in the above referred to judgments, we are of the view that in the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, an amount of Rs. 60,000 will be just and fair compensation for the death of minor child of 6 years who was studying in 2nd class. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 37,000 to Rs. 60,000 which will be due and payable to the claimants by the respondents. The claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the compensation amount from the date of claim petition, i.e., 6.6.1988 till the date of payment. No order as to costs.