Himachal Pradesh High Court
Himachal Road Transportcorporation ... vs Bimla Devi And Ors. on 23 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: II(2000)ACC380, 2000ACJ959
Author: Kuldip Chand Sood
Bench: Kuldip Chand Sood
JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.
1. The award made by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Sirmaur District Camp at Solan, Himachal Pradesh is under challenge in this appeal and cross-objections.
2. Sunil Kumar, son of respondent Manohar Lal, a student of class VIII, died in an unfortunate motor accident, which took place at village Salogra of Tehsil and District Solan on 13.8.91. At the relevant time, Sunil Kumar (deceased) was travelling in bus No. HP-18-3501. When this bus arrived at Salogra, it was stopped for passengers to alight. When Sunil Kumar was alighting from the bus, its driver suddenly, unmindful of the fact that passengers were getting down from the bus, started the bus. Sunil Kumar fell down and was crushed under the tyres. He was shifted to the hospital at Solan where he succumbed to the injuries.
3. The bus is owned by the Himachal Road TransportCorporation respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the Regional Manager of thisCorporation. The bus was being driven, at the relevant time, by Shyam Lal, respondent No. 3.
4. Parents of the deceased Sunil Kumar filed petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan. The learned Tribunal, vide his impugned award, awarded an amount of Rs. 51,000 as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the payment of the award amount.
5. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants herein) preferred this appeal. The respondents have also filed their cross-objections claiming enhancement of the compensation.
6. We have heard Mr. Suresh Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned counsel for the respondents at length. We have also gon through the records.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is twofold. The fir contention of Mr. Suresh Bhardwaj is that as deceased was a minor, being 14 years of age at the relevant time, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified to take into consideration the future prospects of the deceased. The parents, submits Mr. Bhardwaj, are only entitled to the compensation for shock and pain and nothing more. The second contention is even if dependency benefits are to be taken into consideration for the determination of the compensation, the Tribunal grossly erred in applying multiplier of 20 for calculating the dependency benefits.
8. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned counsel for the respondents herein submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced.
9. So far the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, it is now well settled that even in case of death of a minor child the future prospects of minor child have to be taken into consideration for determination of compensation. True it is that shock and pain does constitute one of the considerations in such cases. But the other important consideration which must weigh, is the future prospects of the minor child. In an Indian society parents do look forward to support from the child when he or she grows up. Parents in our society, in their old age, are largely dependent on the children. In our view, the parents, in case of death of a minor child, are to be compensated for loss of future dependency benefits or accretion to the estate.
10. This court in Shingara Ram v. Balak Ram Walia 1988 ACJ 176 (HP), awarded Rs. 30,000 for the death of a child aged about 16 years, who was a student at the relevant time. In case of Uman Singh Gurung v. Seva Ram Dutta 1991 ACJ 1030 (Gauhati), a Division Bench of Gauhati High Court after noticing decisions of various High Courts including K.L. Pasrija v. Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. 1986 ACJ 252 (P&H); Mangaldas Mohanlal Patel v. Union of India 1982 ACJ 426 (Gujarat); Abdul Wahab v. Chandra Prakash 1986 ACJ 1087 (Allahabad), took a view that in case of death of a minor child, it is reasonable and proper to take into consideration the future prospects for determination of compensation payable on the basis of criteria as may be available in a particular case.
11. We are not unmindful of the fact that in the determination of compensation, element of speculation may be more in case of minor compared to the death of a grown up person who has actual earning capacity. Nevertheless, future dependency benefits or accretion to the estate, in such cases, can be determined after taking into consideration the family background, academic achievement of the child and other material available including the age of the child and respective age of the parents.
12. Now in the present case, there is unrebutted evidence of Bimla Devi, PW 4, mother of deceased Sunil Kumar to the effect that Sunil Kumar was studying in Class VIII. He was a brilliant student and always stood first in his class. Certificate, Exh. P-3, from the Government High School, Salogra, shows that Sunil Kumar stood first in his previous class obtaining more than 60 per cent marks. It is further unrebutted evidence of Bimla Devi that her husband is a Government servant and had necessary earning capacity to provide good education to Sunil Kumar. It may be noticed that the appellants have not disputed the evidence discussed above in the cross-examination of Bimla Devi. The appellants have also not produced any evidence in rebuttal.
13. Sunil Kumar, who was studying in class VIII, after completing his education would have been gainfully employed in another 4-6 years and would have earned at least Rs. 2,500 p.m. more so when he had a good academic record and his father was a Government servant. In any event, judicial notice can be taken that minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, presently are more than Rs. 50 per day.
14. The deceased, in any circumstances, would have earned at least Rs. 1,500 p.m. At that level of income and family background as discussed above, he could not be expected to spend more than Rs. 500 to Rs. 600 p.m. for his own upkeep and maintenance. He could have, therefore, kept aside a sum of Rs. 900 to Rs. 1,000 p.m. as accretion to the estate or dependency benefits for his parents. Out of this amount, he would have been required to divert some amount, in due course of time, for meeting the needs of his family, if and when he got married. Though, he would have also earned more at that time. It, therefore, will not be unreasonable to hold that at least Rs. 600 would have been available as dependency benefits or accretion to the estate. Thus, the future dependency benefits or accretion to the estate works out to Rs. 600 x 12 = Rs. 7,200 p.a. Now this amount, in terms of annual dependency or accretion to the estate, has to be multiplied with suitable multiplier to compute the amount of compensation. The multiplier has to be selected after taking into consideration several imponderables like uncertainty of life, possibility of the deceased having gone higher in his vocation and earned more in the years to come coupled with the possibility of his premature death in the normal circumstances. The immediate availability of funds and number of years by which the life of the deceased has cut short are other relevant factors.
15. The deceased was admittedly about 14 years of age. Claimant mother, at the relevant time was 37 years and father was 42 years of age. Deceased admittedly was the only child of the claimants. Deceased would have been gainfully employed for at least 35-40 years or so.
16. We notice that in Shanti Bai v. Charan Singh 1998 ACJ 848 (SC), appellant's eldest son of about 18 years was run over by the motor vehicle. The accident took place on 17.4.91. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000 as compensation. The High Court dismissed the first appeal for enhancement of compensation. However, the Apex Court after taking into consideration the background of the deceased and future economic prospects increased the award to a lump sum of Rs. 1,50,000.
17. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be appropriate to apply multiplier of 10. On the basis of multiplier of 10, the compensation for the loss of dependency benefits or accretion to the estate works out to Rs. 7,200 x 10 = Rs. 72,000. To this an amount of Rs. 12,000 is added for the loss of expectation of life, pain and suffering. The total compensation thus comes to Rs. 84,000. The appellants shall also pay interest as awarded by the Tribunal.
18. In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Cross-objections are allowed. The compensation amount is enhanced to Rs. 84,000. The enhanced amount, i.e., Rs. 33,000 shall be deposited by the appellants along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till actual deposit within eight weeks from today. The appellants shall also pay costs quantified at Rs. 2,000.