Khazan Singh And Anr. vs Basheer Ahmed And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 799 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Chopra, J.

1. Appellants, the unfortunate parents, of deceased child Raj Kumar have come in appeal praying for enhancement of compensation awarded by learned MACT in Suit No. 154/87 decided on 7.4.1997. The Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs. 83100/- with interest @ 12 per cent per annum to the appellants on account of death of deceased who was aged about 14 years at the time of his death in the accident on 13.11.1983.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No. 3. I have gone through the Trial Court Records.

3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are that deceased Raj Kumar a child aged about 14 years had met with an accident with Tuck No. DLG-216 on 13.11.1983 and sustained fatal injuries. The appellants who are the father and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition alleging that the accident in question was on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 was alleged to be the owner and respondent No. 3 the insurer of the offending Truck. The appellants averred that at the time of his death the deceased-child was serving as a Grease man and earning about Rs. 600/- per month. They claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum. In the course of proceedings, the respondent No. 2 died and his name was deleted from the array of the respondents. Respondent No. 1 and 3 absented and as such, were proceeded against ex-parte.

4. The claimants examined PW1 Constable Harpal Singh who proved on record a copy of the FIR PW1/A, PW2 Jai Singh who deposed that the deceased was working with him on payment of Rs. 600/- per month, PW3 Kanwar Lal an eye witness, PW4 the father of the deceased and PW5 Rewat Ram who proved a copy of the post-mortem report Ex.PW5/1.

5. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and the documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending Truck by respondent No. 1 resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased child. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in "General Manager Karnataka State Transport Corporation v. Sushamma Thomas", reported in 1994 ACJ page 1, the learned Tribunal took into consideration not only the last income of the deceased but prospects of the advancement of his future career also. Gross income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 800/- per month out of which Rs. 400/- per month was taken as financial support to the parents for the rest of their life. Applying a multiplier of 15 a compensation of Rs. 72,000/- was arrived at to which a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was added on account of loss of expectancy of life. A sum of Rs. 1100/- was awarded towards expenses on medicine which the appellants had to incur between the date of the accident and the death of the deceased. A total compensation of Rs. 83,100/- with interest @ 12 per cent per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of petition till realisation was awarded.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in "K.R.T.C. v. Sushamma Thomas" 1994 ACJ 1 and a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in "Putamma v. D.V. Krishnappa" 2000 ACJ 103 to contend that the amount of compensation should be enhanced.

7. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal reveals that the learned Trial Judge was not at all persuaded to accept the evidence led by the appellants in regard to the income of the deceased. The learned Trial Judge found contradictions between the statements of PWs 2 and 4 and held that the income of the deceased could not be accepted at Rs. 600/- per month. However, upon an estimated basis, his income was held to be Rs. 500/- per month. Keeping in view the prospects of future increase in income the gross average income of the deceased was estimated at Rs. 800/- per month and then after holding that the financial support to the parents could be Rs. 400/- per month a multiplier of 15 was applied and total financial loss was assessed at Rs. 72,000/-. Another sum of Rs. 10,000/- was added on account of loss of expectancy of life and than a sum of Rs. 1100/- was awarded towards expenses on the treatment of the deceased between the date of the accident and the date of his death.

8. After perusing the statements of PWs 2 & 4, this Court agrees with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the evidence in regard to the income of the deceased was not reliable and trustworthy. However, the course adopted by the learned Tribunal in estimating base income at Rs. 500/- per month and thereafter considering the future increase to estimate gross income at Rs. 800/- per month cannot be sustained for the reason that neither the last income of a child of such a tender age nor future prospects of increase in his income can be safely estimated. 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 a 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 a deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by his parents is capable of mathematical computation.

9. However, this does not mean that in the case of the death of a young child, the parents are to be left high and dry. Every parent has reasonable expectations of financial and moral support from his child and in due course normally he gets it also and as such, compensation has to be awarded to the parents towards the loss of companionship, mental agony and loss of expectations of financial and moral support. In the Karnataka High Court case in "Putamma v. D.V. Krishnappa" (supra) a Division Bench of the Court while dealing with the question of assessment of compensation in the case of a 14 years old child awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the parents taking support from Schedule II (6) to the Act which provides for notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum in case of those who had no income and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses applied a multiplier of 15 to assess the compensation at Rs. 1,50,000/-. This Court fully agrees with the method adopted by the Division Bench and holds that in the case of the death of children between the age of 12 to 15 years, the minimum compensation that should be awarded is Rs. 1,50,000/- which appears to be just and fair compensation payable to the parents whose hopes and dreams get suddenly shattered on account of cruel snatching away of their children in road accidents. However, in certain exceptional cases where the family background of the child, his academic excellence and achievements of his brothers and sisters suggest that the child could have done better and earned much more to support his parents, a higher compensation may be awarded. This Court therefore is of the considered view that a total compensation of Rs. 83,100/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal was neither just nor fair and as such, the same requires to be enhanced for the reasons discussed above.

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed and a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- is awarded to the appellants for the death of their deceased son Raj Kumar. The appellants are entitled to interest of 12% per annum on the sum of Rs. 83,100/- as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the filing of the petition but in regard to the amount enhanced by this Court, the appellants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till realisation. After adjusting the amount already paid, if any, the balance shall be paid to the appellants by the insurer-respondent No. 3 within two months of the passing of this order. The enhanced amount with interest shall be paid to both the appellants in equal shares.

11. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.