JUDGMENT
S.B. Majage, J.
1. This appeal by the appellant, who was respondent in MVC No. 1043 of 1999 on the file of the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum, challenging the order dated 22-12-2000, by which the respondents, who are parents of deceased 5 years’ old child, are awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-since, according to the appellant-Corporation, the compensation awarded is exorbitant and requires to be reduced.
2. Heard argument. It is submitted for the appellant-Corporation that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and not based on any substantive legal evidence or basis and as such, requires to be interfered with. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents-claimants supported the award. Perused the records carefully.
3. The only point for consideration is:
“Whether the compensation awarded requires interference?”
4. In the present matter, the deceased child was aged 5 years at the time of her death in bus accident on 24-4-1999. Though pleaded that she was going to school, the claimants failed to adduce any satisfactory evidence to hold that the deceased was studying in any school. The profession of the father of the deceased is, selling fruits and he is aged about 32 years whereas, the profession of the mother of the deceased is household but her age is not available. The deceased and the claimants belong to Panuharpur in Solapur District, The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The correctness of amount of said compensation is challenged.
5. It may be noted that in the case of K. Mumgesh and Ors. v. M. Palappa and Ors.,
the Supreme Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 1 lakh, where the deceased was a boy of 18 years student. However, in the case of Shanti Bai and Ors. v. Charon Singh and Ors.,
the Supreme Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 11/2 lakhs in the case of death of 18 years boy. Of course, this Court had reduced the compensation to Rs. 50,000/- from Rs. 1 lakh in the case of death of a boy of 17 years’ old student in the case of Bantu and Ors. v. Annappa and Ors..
However, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chinna Dorai and Anr. v. The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore, 2001(4) Kar. L.J. 609 (DB): ILR 2001 Kar. 3784 (DB)
has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,37,500/-, keeping intact the amount of Rs. 70,000/- awarded towards expenses wherein death of 14 years boy had taken place in accident. At the same time, it may be noted that the Supreme Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 50,000/- from Rs. 33,0007- in the case of death of 20 years boy in the case of Jamnabai and Ors. v. Deepak Automobiles and Ors..
But, this Court in the case of Karnataka State 1Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. Dharmanna and Anr., 1998(3) Kar. L.J. 409 : ILR 1998 Kar. 1973 :1999 ACJ 937 (Kar.)
has awarded compensation of Rs. 43,000/- where death of a 11 years old girl doing coolie had taken place in accident. At the same time, it may be noted that in the case of S.P. Narayana Swamy and Anr. v. Kumaraiya Thevar and Ors.,
2000 ACJ 1570 (Mad.)
the High Court of Madras has enhanced compensation to Rs. 1 lakh from Rs. 15,000/- in the case of death of a 14 years bright student studying in 8th standard wherein the parents had lost their only son. However, in the case of Gouranga Katual v. Govinda Mohapatra and Ors., 1996 ACJ 93(Ori.)
the High Court of Orissa awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- only in the case of death of a girl aged 13 years. Similarly, Allahabad High Court awarded compensation of Rs. 30,150/-only in the case of Kamta Prasad and Anr. v. Jaggan and Company and Anr., 1996 ACJ 57 (All.)
where death of a minor girl had taken place. So also, in the case of Jahina Akhtar Hasmi and Ors. v. Guljar Singh and Ors., 1995 ACJ 1286 (MP)
Madhya Pradesh High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- in the case of death of 12 years’ minor. Thus, in none of the said cases, where the deceased was above 10 years old, uniformity or any method is noticed in awarding compensation.
6. However, the Tribunal relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Puttamma and Anr. v. D.V. Krishnappa and Anr., 1999(5) Kar. L.J. 22 (DB) : ILR 1999 Kar. Sh. N. 69 (DB)
and of the Supreme Court in the case of Haji Zainulla Khan (dead) by L.Rs v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad,
to award compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
7. But, it may be noted that in the case of Smt. Puttamma, supra, the Division Bench was considering compensation payable to the parents of 14 years’ old deceased. So also, in the case of Haji Zainulla Khan, supra, the Supreme Court was considering the claim of parents of a deceased aged 20 years, who was studying in B.Sc. Hence, the said decisions could not have been the basis to award compensation by the Tribunal to the parents of deceased 5 years’ old child. So, let me refer the decisions in which compensation has been awarded to children under the age of 10 years.
8. In the case of Mohan Devi and Ors. v. Mamraj and Ors., 1996 ACJ 605 (Del.)
Delhi High Court has awarded compensation of Rs, 10,000/- where the child succumbed to injuries was 41/2 years old. In the case of United India Insurance Company v. Ajit, 2002 ACJ 557 (Ker.)
a Division Bench of Kerala High Court has reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 93,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum from the compensation of Rs. 1,18,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal. In the case of Amati Hymavathi and Anr. v. Nissankararao Srikrishna Murthy and Ors., 2000 ACJ 350 (AP)
a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has considered number of decisions and observed that in the case of death of children on/after 14-11-1994, minimum compensation should be Rs. 50,000/-, but it may be more depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
9. In the case of K.S.R.T.C. v. Nanjappa, M.F.A. No. 1772 of 1997, DD: 7-8-2000
this Court has observed that in all cases, where compensation is claimed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of death of minor children aged upto 10 years, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- would be just compensation that has to be awarded even at the final stage.
10. Further, a Division Bench of this Court has observed as under in the case of Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Annappa Vaidya
“The principle on which compensation for the ‘loss of pecuniary benefit’, either present or prospective is awarded is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit can be established by showing that though the deceased had not attained full-age and full earning capacity, there are prospects of future contributions to the claimants. But this expectation must be a reasonable expectation and not a mere speculative possibility. That is the reason why in cases of very young children parents cannot recover-because the child was subject to all risks of illness, accident and death and there can be no adequate basis for speculation one way or the other. In Barnett
v. Cohen, (1921)2 KB 461
the father who was in business could not recover where the deceased was a boy aged 4 years, because the expectation of pecuniary benefit for the future would not be a reasonable expectation in such a case. It was a mere speculative possibility. Mc Cardie J. observed:
“The boy was subject to all the risks of illness, disease, accident and death. His education and upkeep would have been a substantial burden to the plaintiff for many years if he had lived. He might or might not have turned out a useful young man. He would have earned nothing till about 16 years of age. He might never have aided his father at all. He might have proved a mere expense. I cannot adequately speculate one way or the other”.
In such a case there is, at best, a speculative possibility and that would be insufficient to sustain a claim, which as one Judge said “is pressed to extinction by the weight of multiplied contingencies”.
11. It need not be said that the purpose to compensate the dependants of victims is that they may not be suddenly deprived of the source of their maintenance and as far as possible, they may be provided with the means as were available to them before the accident took place and that will be a just and fair compensation. So, to have uniformity in the compensation to be awarded, it is observed by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Tri-vandrum v. Smt. Susamma Thomas and Ors.,
that:
“The multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established method of ensuring a ‘just’ compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards.. .”.
The same has been reiterated time and again, but it is for assessing loss of dependency only that too, in cases, where the victims in accidents are above the age of 15 years and not in case of death of a child aged 15 years.
12. The case on hand relates to the death of a child aged 5 years. It need not be emphasised that a 5 years’ old child is subject to all risks of life, illness, etc., and as such, there can be no adequate basis for speculation one way or the other as observed in the case of Annappa Vaidya, supra. So also, in such a case, the question of loss of any source of maintenance or dependency to the parents does not arise and consequently, applying multiplier method to assess loss of dependency to award compensation may not be proper. Then the question will be, what should be the method in such cases.
13. In the case of Annappa Gangappa Kumbar and Anr. v. C. Subramanyam (dead) by L.Rs and Anr., ILR 2001. Kar. 2329
this Court after applying
multiplier method, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,18,600/- to the parents, when death of a child aged 6 years had taken place and observed thus.-
“7. While applying multiplier in case of death of a child two seeming undue advantages enure to the dependants/claimants have to be carefully considered. The earnings and income to the child notionally could be attributed only after the child crosses the barriers of child employment and usually the employment can be taken around the age of 18. Supposing a child of 8 years dies, for a period of 10 years, no income can be attributed to such a child. It is only beyond the age of 18 for the full length of normal life span, the income has to be assessed. Whereas in case of an adult aged around 18 dies, normal multiplier method is followed and dependants would get the full benefit. But in the example case, the income of the deceased is assessed much in advanced period of about 10 years, that is from the stand point of the deceased, the assessment of notional income is judged and attributed which is one of the advantages enuring to the dependants. Further, after such advanced notional accelerated assessment, the dependants would receive the compensation much in advance period of about 10 years. Therefore, the dependants enjoy twin advantages in the sense that to the account of the deceased the accelerated notional income assumed for the notional normal life span is assessed from the stand point of the deceased and similarly by the same measure of period of number of years the dependants take the accelerated benefit of assessment much in advance and there is a benefit of acceleration of 10 years to each of the advantage noticed above thereby the total benefit of acceleration would be around 20 years, to neutralise the benefit of the accelerated period and in order to bring about equitable fair play in the assessment of compensation proportionate deduction of 4 multiplies is to be made from the applicable multiplier which is judged from the stand point of the age of dependants.
8. With the aforesaid method, the compensation in the present case is to be assessed. The deceased was aged 6 years. There is an acceleration of almost 12 years while reckoning the income and earning capacity of the child and so also well in advance of 12 years, the dependent would be getting the lumpsum compensation. The age of the mother in the instant case is 32 years. Therefore, 15 multiple would be applicable in the normal course. If one multiple is deducted for every completed accelerated period 5 years, 4 multiples have to be deducted from the normal multiples of 15. Thereby the proper multiplier to be applied would be 11″.
14. Further, in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited and Ors. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors.,
even the Supreme Court has also observed that:
“By applying a multiplier other than the scheduled multiplier does not mean that any method other than multiplier method has been applied. For some special reasons, some deviations from the scheduled multiplier can be made”.
Thus, the multiplier can be changed depending on the facts and circumstances of a case even when the multiplier provided in Schedule II is taken as a guide. So, in my opinion, to award just and reasonable compensation to the helpless parents of their dead child, the multiplier method can be of great assistance.
15. Hence, as done in the case of Annappa Gangappa Kumbar, supra, if in the present case, calculation is made taking minimum notional income set out in Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 96,000/- (Rs. 1,250/- Rs. 850/- = Rs. 800/- x 12 months x 10 multiplier). However, if it is done taking Rs. 15,000/- per annum, it will be Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- – Rs. 5,000/- = Rs. 10,000/- x 10 multiplier).
16. This can be arrived at by another method indicated below by reducing appropriate multiplier (out of 15 multiplier) taking into consideration the risk factors to which a child is subject to:
Age of child
Multiplier
Amount
Amount
14 – 15 yrs
15 x
Rs. 10,000
Rs. 1,50,000
12 – 13 yrs
14 x
Rs. 10,000
Rs. 1,40,000
10 – 11 yrs
13 x
Rs. 10,000
Rs. 1,30,000
8 – 9 yrs
12 x
Rs. 10,000
Rs. 1,20,000
6 – 7 yrs
11 x
Rs. 10,000
Rs. 1,10,000
5 yrs
10 x
Rs. 10,000
Rs. 1,00,000
4 yrs
9 x
Rs. 10,000
Rs. 90,000
3 yrs
8 x
Rs. 10,000
Rs. 80,000
2 yrs
7 x
Rs. 10,000
Rs. 70,000
1 yr
6 x
Rs. 10,000
Rs. 60,000
Less than 1 yr
5 x
Rs. 10,000
Rs. 50,000
Yet by another mode also, the amount of compensation can be arrived by awarding compensation under conventional heads towards (1) loss of love and affection; and (2) loss of estate as under since, in-the case of non-earning minor children, there will not be any actual loss of dependency to award compensation for that by applying multiplier method.-
Age of child
Amount of compensation towards
Loss of love and affection
Loss of estate
14 – 15 yrs
Rs. 75,000
Rs. 75,000
Rs. 1,50,000
12 – 13 yrs
Rs. 70,000
Rs. 70,000
Rs. 1,40,000
10 – 11 yrs
Rs. 65,000
Rs. 65,000
Rs. 1,30,000
8 – 9 yrs
Rs. 60,000
Rs. 60,000
Rs. 1,20,000
6 – 7 yrs
Rs. 55,000
Rs. 55,000
Rs. 1,10,000
5 yrs
Rs. 50,000
Rs. 50,000
Rs. 1,00,000
4 yrs
Rs. 45,000
Rs. 45,000
Rs. 90,000
3 yrs
Rs. 40,000
Rs. 40,000
Rs. 80,000
2 yrs
Rs. 35,000
Rs. 35,000
Rs. 70,000
1 yr
Rs. 30,000
Rs. 30,000
Rs. 60,000
Less than 1 yr
Rs. 25,000
Rs. 25,000
Rs. 50,000
For the said amount, a further sum ranging from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- can be added towards ‘loss of expectancy’ besides a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’ i.e., a further sum ranging from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- can be added to the amount of compensation arrived at.
17. So, in case of a girl or boy aged 14 years, the amount of compensation payable to the parents will not be less than Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded by this Court and also by the Apex Court and the minimum compensation payable will not be less than Rs. 50,000/-.
18. In the case of death of children, though said criteria can be adopted in the absence of any specific evidence or material or circumstances, it is made clear that these are not strict jacket formulas since the compensation to be determined and awarded may vary from case to case depending on various factors including whether the deceased was the only child or the only male/female child, education, health of child, etc., as well as parents’ family background and other relevant considerations for the reason that as far as possible the compensation to be awarded should be just and reasonable.
19. Consequently, in the facts of the present case noted already, the amount of compensation payable to the claimants (who are parents of a female child aged 5 years), comes to Rs. 1,09,000/- (Rs. 1,00,000/- + Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses), which can be said to be just and reasonable compensation, to which the claimants are entitled to with an interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum and as such, the impugned award requires to be interferred with. No other point has been raised nor remained for consideration.
20. In the result, appeal is allowed in part holding that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,09,000/- (as against Rs. 1,50,000/-awarded by the Tribunal), but rest of the things are kept in tact. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award stand modified. No cost.
21. The amount in deposit in this Court is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal.
