Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dharam Pal vs Naresh Kumar & Ors on 6 March, 2012
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.433 of 1999 Dharampal -Appellant vs. Naresh Kumar and ors-Respondents Date of judgment : 06.3.2012 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI Ms.Usha Chauhan learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Satendra Sharma learned counsel for the respondents By the Court:
1.The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'said Act') seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarhbas, District-Alwar,vide the award dated 9.8.1997 in claim petition No.81 of 92, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of application till its realization for the death of Manoj Kumar, son of the appellant.
2.It has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel Ms Usha Chauhan for the appellant that the deceased Manoj Kumar, son of the appellant was aged about 6 years at the time of the accident which took place on 13.7.1992 and the Tribunal has awarded very meagre compensation of Rs.25,000/- which needs to be enhanced appropriately in view of the judgment of this court in the case of Kailash vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2008 Law Suit (Raj.) 690 and unreported judgment in the case of Smt. Nana Devi and ors vs. Gurumel Singh and ors (S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.870 of 2011 and ors decided on 2.11.2011.
3.However, learned counsel Mr. Sharma appearing for the respondent Insurance company has submitted that there could not be any straight jacket formula for awarding compensation for the death of young boy and considering the date of accident, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper which needs to be confirmed.
4.In the instant case, it appears that deceased Manoj Kumar son of the appellant died in the accident which had taken place on 13.7.1992, when he was going along with his mother Smt. Vimla Devi and was hit by the Truck bearing registration No. RJA-6782 near bus stand at village Tatarpur District-Alwar. The said Vimla Devi had preferred claim petition No.80 of 1992 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her, and the present appellant who happened to be the husband of Smt. Vimla Devi and father of the deceased Manoj Kumar filed claim petition No.81 of 1992 claiming compensation for the death of said Manoj Kumar. The Tribunal vide the common award dated 9.8.97 awarded Rs.35,000/- to the said Smt.Vimla Devi for the injuries sustained by her, and awarded Rs.25,000/- for the death of said Manoj Kumar with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of application till realization. Being aggrieved of the said award so far as it related to the death of the deceased Manoj Kumar, the appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
5.So far as the compensation to be awarded to the appellant is concerned, it is to be noted that the deceased Manoj Kumar was hardly aged about 6 years and therefore there could not be any evidence as regards his income or about his future prospects. In this regard, a very pertinent observations made by the Apex court from time to time in various judgments are required to be reproduced. In the case of Kaushlya Devi vs Karan Arora and ors.AIR 2007 SC 1912, it has been observed as under:
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.
6.The Apex court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Satender and ors AIR 2007 SC 324, following the earlier judgment in the case of of State of Haryana and Anr. Vs Jasbir Kaur and ors 2003 (7) SCC 484, held as under:
8.In the State of Haryana and Anr. vs. Jasbir Kaur and ors 2003(7) SCC 484) it was held as under:
"7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be "just and reasonable". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be 'just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of 'just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression 'just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC (1999(1) SCC 90)
9.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, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents.
7.The Apex court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company. Ltd. vs Syed Ibrabim and ors AIR 2008 SC 103 also had an occasion to deal with a case, where the Tribunal had awarded Rs.51,500/- for the death of a young child aged about 7 years and had confirmed the said award,following the earlier views taken by it, for awarding compensation in the case of death of young children of tender age.
8.In view of the above referred ratio of judgments and guidelines laid down by the Apex court, and in view of the fact that in the instant case, the accident in question is very old, it would be just and proper to enhance the compensation to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- for the death of deceased Manoj Kumar.
9.In that view of the matter,the impugned award is modified to the extent that the appellant claimant would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of his son Manoj Kumar which occurred in accident in question. The appellant shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application before the Tribunal till realization on the enhanced amount of compensation. The appeal is party allowed accordingly.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI) J.
om/P.7/433cma1933 reserve final.doc All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Om Prakash PA