Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Jyoti & Anr vs Parminder Pal Singh & Ors (Hdfc ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3574 Del

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 3574 Del
Judgement Date : 13 May, 2016

Delhi High Court
Jyoti & Anr vs Parminder Pal Singh & Ors (Hdfc ... on 13 May, 2016
$~24

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                  Date of Decision: 13th May, 2016
+      MAC.APP. 945/2014

       JYOTI & ANR
                                                        ..... Appellant
                         Through       Ms. Hreeshika Bhargav, Mr.
                                       Manish Maini and Mr. Aashish
                                       Sharma, Advs.

                         versus


       PARMINDER PAL SINGH & ORS (HDFC ERGO GENERAL
       INSURANCE COMPANY LTD)
                                                ..... Respondent
                   Through   Mr. P Acharya, Adv. for R-3

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
                         JUDGMENT

R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):

1. While upholding the case of the claimants, as presented in accident claim case MACP 422/2014 (instituted on 11.04.2014) that their child Nitish, aged 2 ½ years had died as result of accident caused due to negligent driving of a motor vehicle bearing registration No.DL 3CBS 2840, the motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) by judgment dated 05.07.2014, awarded compensation in the sum of `3,75,000/- directing the third respondent (insurer) to pay, it having concededly issued an insurance

policy respecting the offending vehicle against third party risk for the period in question. The finding about negligence has attained finality as it was not challenged further.

2. By the appeal at hand, the claimants seek enhancement, their grievance being that the view taken in R K Malik & Anr. v. Kiran Pal & Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 1 and National Insurance Co. v. Farzana 2009 ACJ 2763 cannot hold good respecting an accident that occurred in April, 2014. By judgment pronounced earlier today (13.05.2016) in a batch of similarly placed other appeals led by MAC.APP.554/2010, Chetan Malhotra v. Lala Ram, this Court has held as under :

"Subject to all other requisite conditions being fulfilled, for the foregoing reasons, in order to bring about consistency and uniformity in approach to the issue, it is held that claims for compensation on account of death of children shall be determined as follows :

(i). Till such time as the law is amended by the legislature, or the Central Government notifies the amendment to the Second Schedule in exercise of the enabling power vested in it by Section 163-A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and except in cases wherein the prospects of employability and earnings (in future or present) of the deceased child are proved by cogent and irrefutable evidence, this having regard, inter alia, to the academic record or training in special talents or skills, for computing the pecuniary damages on account of the loss to estate, the notional income of non-earning persons (`15000/- p.a.) as specified in the Second Schedule (brought in force from 14.11.1994), shall be assumed to be the income of the deceased child, and taken into account after it is inflation-corrected with the help of Cost Inflation Index (CII) as notified by the

Government of India from year to year under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by applying the formula indicated hereinafter.

(ii) For inflation-correction, the financial year of 1997-1998 shall be treated as the "base year" and the value of the notional income relevant to the date of cause of action shall be computed in the following manner :-

` 15,000/- x A ÷331 [wherein the figure of „`15,000/-‟ represents the notional income specified in the second schedule requiring inflation-correction; „A‟ represents the CII for the financial year in which the cause of action arose (i.e. the accident / death occurred); and the figure of „331‟ represents the CII for the „base year‟]

(iii). After arriving at an appropriate figure of the present equivalent value of the notional income (i.e. inflation-corrected amount), it shall be rounded off to a figure in next thousands of rupees.

(iv). The amount of notional income thus calculated shall be reduced to two-third, the deduction to the extent of one-third being towards personal & living expenses of the deceased, the balance taken as the annual loss to estate (hereinafter also referred to as "the multiplicand").

(v). For assessment of the pecuniary damages on account of the death of children upto the age of 10 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated, capitalizing the multiplicand, by applying the multiplier of ten (10).

(vi). For children of the age-group of more than 10 years upto 15 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of fifteen (15).

(vii). For children of the age-group of more than 15 years but less than 18 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of eighteen (18).

(viii). After the pecuniary loss to estate has been worked out in the manner indicated above, an amount equivalent to the amount thus computed shall be added to it as the composite non-pecuniary damages taking care of not only the conventional heads but also towards future prospects as awarded in R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal (2009) 14 SCC 1.

(ix). The final sum thus arrived at, appropriately rounded off, if so required to the nearest (if not next) thousands of rupees, shall be awarded as compensation for the death of the child."

3. Thus, the compensation in the present case is recomputed.

4. The death having occurred on 08.04.2014, the cost inflation index (CII) for financial year 2014-15 (i.e. 1024) would apply. Thus, the notional income of `15,000/- per annum, is to be inflation-corrected as (15,000 x 1,024 ÷ 331) `46,404/- rounded off to `47,000/-. Upon deduction of 1/3rd and applying the multiplier of 10, the pecuniary loss to estate is calculated as (47,000 x 2 ÷ 3 x 10) `3,13,333/- rounded off to `3,20,000/-. Adding similar amount towards composite non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation in the case is computed as `6,40,000/-.

5. The compensation is enhanced to `6,40,000/-.

6. Following the consistent view taken by this Court [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v.

Sangeeta Devi & Ors.], the rate of interest is increased to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

7. The insurer is directed to deposit the balance of its liability with the tribunal within 30 days making it available to the claimants.

8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) MAY 13, 2016 VLD

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter