Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.5,94,000/- in the following manner:

1. Non Pecuniary Loss:

             (i) Pain and suffering:                    = Rs.50,000/-
             (ii) Loss of enjoyment of life             = Rs.50,000/-




                                                                           .
             (iii) Shortened expectation of life        = No amount under this head.





      2. Pecuniary Damages:

             (i)     Loss of earning and earning capacity:

.

1. Non Pecuniary Loss:

            (i) Pain and suffering:                    = Rs.50,000/-
            (ii) Loss of enjoyment of life             = Rs.50,000/-





            (iii) Shortened expectation of life        = No amount under this head.

      2. Pecuniary Damages:

            (i)     Loss of earning and earning capacity:

The claimant had remained admitted in hospital w.e.f.

equipped with requisite skills to be gainfully employed in a variety of trades.

They are after all nearing adulthood and thus, on the threshold of becoming self-reliant. In such cases, the prospects of their employability and earnings in future or present, based on evidence adduced about their academic track record or training in special talents or skills, would need to be borne in mind. As in Lata Wadhwa (supra), the claim for pecuniary damages arising out of death of children of this age group cannot be at par with the lower age groups falling in the first and second category. Therefore, the pecuniary loss to estate due to their death would deserve to be worked out by applying a higher multiplier on the notional income (of non-earning persons) unless, of course, case is properly made out for higher considerations. Noticeably, in Sarla Verma (supra) the Supreme Court specified the multiplier of 18 for cases where the deceased was in the age-group of 15 years ‟ to 20 years ‟ old. For the first and second category, however, the multiplier of 10 and 15 respectively, as used in R.K. Malik (supra), would hold good.

69. The award of compensation must necessarily take into account non- pecuniary damages. In R.K. Malik (supra), ₹75,000/- awarded by this Court as the "conventional compensation" was enhanced by the Supreme Court by further similar amount (₹75,000/-) as the "compensation for future prospects". For the reasons set out earlier, in the context of pecuniary loss to estate, the composite sum of non- pecuniary damages of ₹1,50,000/- [as awarded in R.K. Malik (supra)] would deservedly be added, but with suitable correction so as to ensure that the deficiency in the real value of money is made good. As noted (in para 46) earlier, the Supreme Court justified the addition of `75,000/- towards compensation for "future prospects" by noting that the said amount was "roughly half of the amount given on account of pecuniary damages". Since the court had also upheld the award of similar sum (`75,000/-) by this court as "conventional compensation", both amounts of non-pecuniary damages, put together, account for roughly an amount .