Ashok Kumar & Anr. vs Rakesh Kumar & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5833 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 Date of decision: 27th September, 2012
+       MAC. APP. 57/2005

        ASHOK KUMAR & ANR.                              .... Appellants
                    Through:            Mr.J.S.Kanwar, Advocate

                       versus

        RAKESH KUMAR & ANR.                            .... Respondents
                    Through:            None.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `75,000/-

awarded in favour of the Appellants for the death of a two year old child, who died in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 7th October, 2000.

2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the compensation awarded is too meagre for the loss of the life of a young child.

3. This case is covered by a judgment of this Court in the case of 'Satender Mahto & Ors. v. Mohd. Sahbir & Ors.' MAC APP. 309/2010, decided on 23rd July, 2012, wherein this Court granted a compensation of `2,25,000/- towards loss of

dependency and a sum of `75,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages.

4. Paras 3 and 4 of the report are extracted hereunder:-

"3. This Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Farzana & Ors. MAC APP.13/2007 decided on 14th July, 2009 considered Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan, VII (2005) SLT 257, R.K. Malik & Ors. v. Kiran Pal & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 2506 and opined that in the case of death of a child a notional income of ` 15,000/- is to be taken and applying the multiplier of 15 the loss of dependency was held to be ` 2,25,000/-. The Claimants were further held to be entitled for a sum of ` 75,000/- towards future prospects and ` 75,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Farzana & Ors. (supra).

4. The only distinction between the judgments referred to above is that the deceased in this case was a child of just two years. In the circumstances, the Appellants would not be entitled to any compensation towards future prospects. Accordingly, I award a sum of `2,25,000/- towards loss of dependency and a sum of `75,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages."

5. The compensation is enhanced to `2,25,000/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the Petition till its payment.

6. Respondent No.1 being the driver and Respondent No.2 being the owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded.

7. The Respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with the Claims Tribunal along with interest

within six weeks.

8. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

9. Pending applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 v