JUDGMENT
Ajoy Nath Ray, J.
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree which awarded a compensation Rs. 25,000/- to her for the loss of her son’s life caused by the negligence of the respondent. There is no cross-appeal and the issue of negligence is no longer open. A live wire belonging to the respondents was touched by the appellant’s son when he was playing football on the ground outside the local hospital, and he was electrocuted immediately.
2. The mother came to the ground and found her son standing and holding the wire, by then dead. The Headmaster of the school deposed that he knew the deceased Pankaj Ganguly who was a student of Saktinagar High School and for whose death a condolence meeting was held the day after his death.
3. The decree is challenged as having awarded too low an amount of compensation.
4. The following cases were relied upon by the appellant before us :
1. 1998 ACJ 918, Hanuman Sant and Ors. v. Madan Lal and Ors.
2. 1998 ACJ 450, Managing Director, Dheeran Chinnamalal Transport Corporation v. Thangaraju and Anr.)
3. 1996 ACJ 1349, Anjana v. Mangal Singh and Anr.
4. 1995 ACJ, Shakun v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
5. 2000 ACJ 73, Sobhan Ali and Ors. v. Jitendra Narayan Mondal and Anr.
6. 2000 ACJ 103, Puttamm and Anr. v. D. V. Krishnappa and Anr.
The following case was cited by the appellant in the lower Court but was pointed out to us by the respondents in appeal.
, Asa Ram and Anr. v. M. C. D. and Ors.
5. The following cases were relied upon by the respondents before us :
1. , Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.
2. , Prerna and Anr. v. M. P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.
6. The appellant submits on the basis of the above authorities that money is no compensation to the parents for the loss of their child. However, the Court can only award money. In this regard, compensation as made on certain principles; the compensation has to be reasonable, equitable and fair; also the family background, academic career and other factors regarding the dead child have to be borne in mind.
7. It was also submitted that guidance as to amounts in this respect could be found from the 2nd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Monetary figures are there given which are to be awarded for cases of road accident death. The schedule is not mandatory but certainly a good guide; since the Parliament has fixed money figures and since the amount of compensation to be awarded cannot be varied in any way because of the different types of negligence, whether on the road or on the football field, these money figures should be used as good guides in this appeal also.
8. In our opinion, the above arguments are good arguments and are supported by the appellants authorities.
9. The respondents contended, on the other hand, that even if the principles are true, those must be applied only on the facts proved. It was said that the deceased’s background is hardly know; there are no indications to show that the deceased supported or could later have supported the family in any manner.
10. We are of the opinion that the above Schedule can and should be used by Courts as a broad and standard guide. By that Schedule a non-earning member would be deemed to be earning Rs. 15,000/- per year. This amount of earning allows the Court to calculate the compensation in terms of money even where money is no compensation.
11. Even if one were to deduct 1/3rd of the said figure personal expenses and then to use the multiplier of 15, the figure of Rs. 1,50,000/- will be reached. This seems to be a standard figure for loss of life of one who was a unit of the family but was not an earning member, if the figure is to be enhanced the factors have to be shown by the claimant. If the figure is to be made less, the defendant should prove factors, like a destitute background.
12. We find that there is no proof either way which can substitutionally alter this standard figure in this case. The plaint also claimed this amount.
13. As such, because of the principles of law which should have been applied, but were not the decree under appeal is enhanced. The plaintiff’s suit is decreed hereby. There will be a decree for Rs. 1,50,000/-. The same will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit until payment. The plaintiff will be entitled to costs both in the Court below and before us and the State Electricity Board should have settled the matter a long time ago.
14. The appeal is allowed.
15. Let xerox certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on urgent basis, if applied for.
Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.
16. I agree.