Sh. Kamlesh Singh Yadav & Another vs Sh. Sukaram Pal Singh & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 4298 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Judgment: 02.09.2011

+            MAC APPEAL No. 795/2011

SH. KAMLESH SINGH YADAV & ANOTHER    ...........Appellants
                  Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate.

                  Versus

SH. SUKARAM PAL SINGH & OTHERS                  ..........Respondents
                   Through: Nemo

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 The Award impugned is the Award dated 19.05.2011

whereby a total compensation in the sum of `3,75,000/- had been

awarded in favour of the claimants of the child victim. This Award

has been impugned; contention before this Court is that the

notional income of `15,000/- per annum which had been taken

into account was on a wrong premise; adhering to the second

Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1963 (MVA) which was notified

in the year 1994 being more than 1- ½ decades old, consideration

of inflation and price rise not having been considered and by

applying the notional income of `15,000/- per annum, the Tribunal

has committed an error. Learned counsel for the appellants to

support this submission has placed reliance upon a judgment of

Uttarakhan High Court reported in 2011 ACJ 664 Reema and

another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & others.

2 Record shows that the victim in this case was a 9 years old

child; he had died in a road accident which had occurred on

15.03.2008. The child was studying in the first class in Holy Angel

School; he was the only child of his parents. Claim petition had

been filed under Section 166 of the MVA. The Tribunal after oral

and documentary evidence and relying upon the proposition laid

down in R.K. Malik and another Vs. V. Kiran Pal and others AIR

2009 SC 2506 had noted that in the case of child victim, `15,000/-

per annum has to be taken as the notional income upon which

multiplier of 15 was applied; loss of income was thus calculated @

`2,25,000/-; this was under the head of 'pecuniary damages'; a

sum of `1,50,000/- had been awarded under the head of 'non-

pecuniary damages' i.e. `75,000/- for future prospects and

another sum of `75,000/- for pain and sufferings which had been

suffered by the claimants of the victim; this was also in view of the

ratio of the judgment in the case of R.K. Malik (Supra). There is no

fault in this finding of the Tribunal; it in no manner suffers from

any infirmity.

3 The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the

appellants is totally misplaced; this was a case where deceased

victim was 34 years of age and was even otherwise on the issue of

the correct multiplier to be applied. This Court is dealing with the

case of child victim. The judgment of R.K. Malik (Supra) has been

consistently followed by the Benches of this Court and lastly in the

case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Farzana in MAC

APPEAL No. 13/2007 decided on 14.07.2009. Appeal has no merit.

4     Dismissed.



                                          INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 02, 2011
a