IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-11-2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
C.M.A.No.3657 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
Nehru Street,
Pondy-1. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
vs.
1.Kannan,
2.Kamatchi,
3.Subash.
(3rd respondent remained
ex parte in the lower court
and notice is dispensed with
for him) ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 and 2
and 1st respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 29.5.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.87 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.3), Vridhachalam.
For appellants : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy.
-----
JUDGMENT
The National Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 29.5.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.87 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.3), Vridhachalam.
2. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation on the death of 7 years old girl student by name Gayathri, in an accident that happened on 1.7.2006. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5%.
3. The Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – vs. – Satender reported in A.I.R. 2007 Supreme Court 324 = 2006 AIR SCW 6139, in the case of death of a 9 years old child in an accident which happened on 7.5.2002 upheld a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- granted as compensation. In the said judgment, paragraph 10 to 13 reads thus:-
” In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child’s life time. But this will not necessarily bar the parent’s claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim provided that the parents’ establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. V. Jenkins (1913) AC 1, and Lord Atkinson said thus:
“…. all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can I think, be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them.” (See Lata Wadhwa and Ors. V. State of Bihar and Ors. (2001(8) SCC 197).
11. This Court in Lata Wadhwa’s case (supra) while computing compensation made distinction between deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years.
12. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation.
13. Applying the principles indicated in
Jasbir Kaur’s case (supra) to the facts of the present case, we think award of a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- would meet the ends of justice. The same shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of petition till payment is made. Payment shall be made within a period of three months from today. Amounts, if any, already paid shall be adjusted from the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,80,000/-“.
Considering the above decision of the Apex Court and also taking note that the accident in this case happened in the year 2006, the award of the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- as compensation to the parents of the deceased 7 years old girl, this court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation and to reduce it any further.
4. The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% stands confirmed, since the accident in this case happened in the year 2006.
5. Finding no merit, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant prays for eight weeks’ time to deposit the award amount and it is granted. On such deposit the respondents 1 and 2/claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ts
To
1.Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court No.3,
(The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal)
Vridhachalam