Sh. Surender Kumar & Anr. vs Vikas S/O. Sh. Satveer & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4202 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 29.8.2011


+                  MAC Appeal No. 739/2010


SH. SURENDER KUMAR & ANR.                        ...........Appellants

                          Through:   Mr. S.N.Parashar, Advocate.

                   Versus

VIKAS S/O. SH. SATVEER & ORS.            ..........Respondents
                    Through: Mr.Kanwal        Chaudhary,
                              Advocate R-3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                 Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has impugned the Award dated 29.04.2010 vide

which compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- had been

awarded qua the death of the child victim aged 12 years Master

Veer Singh. The learned counsel for the appellant is aggrieved by

the fact that the deduction of 1/3rd had been affected by the

Tribunal; his contention in view of the judgment of R.K. Malik &

Ors. vs. Kiran Pal & Ors. 2009 ACJ 1924 followed by a Bench of

this court in Chiranji Lal Ors. vs. Mangat Ram & Ors. reported in

I (2010) ACC 855; no deduction is permissible in the case of a

child victim; the contention is that the notional income of Rs.

15,000/- p.a. was correctly applied to which multiplier of 15 was

added; no deductions were permissible hereafter; the claimant

was entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- towards the

pecuniary loss.

2. Record shows that the deceased Master Veer Singh was

aged 12 years; claim petition had been filed under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the judgment of R.K. Malik

(supra), the notional income of the child victim as per the

structured formula of Section 163 A of the Second Schedule of

the Motor Vehicles Act applicable in such like cases was correctly

taken at Rs. 15,000 p.a. to which correct multiplier of 15 was

added. The Apex Court in the case of R.K. Malik (supra), has made

following observations:-

"14. Under the Second Schedule of the Act in case of a non-earning person, his income is notionally estimated at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The Second Schedule is applicable to claim petitions filed under Section 163A of

the Act. The Second Schedule provides for the multiplier to be applied in cases where the age of the victim was less than 15 years and between 15 years but not exceeding 20 years. Even when compensation is payable under Section 166 read with Section 168 of the Act, deviation from the structured formula as provided in the Second Schedule is not ordinarily permissible, except in exceptional cases. (see Abati Bezbaruah v. Geological Survey of India, United India Insurance Co. ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahan and U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra)

16. The Second Schedule also provides for deduction of 1/3rd consideration towards expenses which the victim would have incurred on himself if he had lived. As compensation for loss of dependency is to be calculated on the basis of notional income because the deceased was a child. It by necessary implication takes into account future prospects, inflation, price rise, etc. Therefore keeping in view the Second Schedule of the Act, this Court does not see any reason to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal as well as the High Court insofar as award of pecuniary compensation to the dependants/claimants is concerned."

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the

Second Schedule and the structured formula contained therein

had been adhered to in the impugned order which calls for no

interference. This submission of the learned counsel for the

respondent is forceful and is evident from the ratio laid down in

R.K. Malik (supra). The Apex Court has noted that the structured

formula has to be strictly adhered to; this structured formula

clearly states that 1/3rd has to be deducted as expenses. Expenses

had been rightly considered keeping in view the fact that had the

victim lived he would have incurred 1/3rd expenses on himself. The

finding in the impugned Award on this count calls for no

interference.

4. Admittedly, sum of Rs. 75,000/- has been awarded under the

head of "pain and sufferings" and another sum of Rs. 75,000/- for

"loss of future prospects": total awarded amount is Rs. 3 lacs;

there is no infirmity in this calculation.

5. Appeal has no merit; it is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

AUGUST 29, 2011 rb