' L4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IRAWAD
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, .2D,1IO
BEFORE
I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAv1NDI«:III':v;.ARij: ._ TJ"
M.F.A. No.7153/2:DO5_"m:I\7i\._' A"
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCEICO. LTD, '
DIVISIONAL OEFIcE,,.--EELGAUM,'--- "
THROUGH REGIONAL, "OFEI_CE.,. ~ " .
P. KALINGA RAO ROAD, BAI'J.C{A:LORE-"27" ,
EY DULY CONSTITUTED 'A_T'FORjNEYvV 'I
'I, s' '<4 Ax». - . APPELLANT
(BY SRI.}f;4'_D:§IT'AR H .
AND: ' .
1 . SRI.i{ASAPPA"'S:jD:DAI5RA' EARNAL,
AGE27 YEARS. = I'
2. MALLAWWA W,/Q--.vASA'éRA YARNAL
AO_;E.'26 YEARS._,_ V
,' «S_Or.IA'NNA"S.__/O VASAPPA YARNAL
% .'w_ATOEDvI.A'E.O~uT'-go YEARS.
4. "SIDDARRA':_S.}O VASAPPA YARNAL,
AC<ED.._"AB-f}'UT 08 YEARS.
.RESRO--NDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
VREJPARESENTED BY RESP()NDENT--1.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT RAXI,
V' A. _.:HUKKIERI TALUK,
LJI .
DISTBELGAUM.
SHANKARAGOUDA SHIDAGOUDA PATEL
MAJOR IN AGE
R/O.HALAGADAGI CHAL,
SANKESHWAR, TQ.HUKKERI
BELGAUM DIST.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI ADVOCATE FOR R1_.,__
NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH V.C.O. Dt.20;Q9..10)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 30.5.05′–PASSED.’_IN{_
MVC No,2325/04 ON THE FILE OF’ THE Cm.I.,._’;I,UDOE (SI'<;«..p
DN.) 86 MEMBER, AMACT, gHUI<:'I;EI§I,_, 'AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF' 22,25,000/– WITH INTE.iREPS'I'A.A'T 6'%f-sP__.A;:Vr_'
THIS APPEAL COMING ON EOI2 OR
COURT DELIVERED THE POLLO-wpI*I~-IO:
This appeal by ispfiiedr_questi0ning the
correctness and Tand order dated
30.05.2005 pasIs3_d’i::–:iri._V ..Ng;..23T;:S[_9I004 by Addl. MACT,
Hu1<1<er1.'2.,
2. Heard theii1’eafrIedV.a’dVoCateS appearing for parties.
D–att«ar, learned Counsel appearing for the
.i’appeIIa.t11t*._yI%oiiIIrIi’Eontend that compensation as awarded by
tribuniaii is to the View taken by this Court as reported
p In IL4I2..I1..9.9i9 SHORT NOTES PAGE 69 whereunder
A r:fOrripe’n.&sation in respect of a deceased aged about ten years was
ggwhardeid at ?’i,50,000/– and as Such, he prays before this Court
“rfpofiscaling down the Compensation as awarded by tribunal from
I ?”2,25,000/– to 31,50,000/H.
6%,/’
DERS P.*I*HI’SpiAIf;, ” S.
4. Per contra, Sri. i\/Irutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 would support. the
judgment and award passed by tribunal and c0n§;e1idgs._t_hat_
the instant case, deceased was aged more th&1.f,1_i’Eer1 years ioid,
and as such, compensation as award_edby 5tri’b_’_u’r1yaI_iis_iin
consonance with the law laid down byi’this..C0urt.”.a.s dwell
apex court and pray for dismissaiivotiithe appeailfe
5. Having heard theiiiilearnedvappearing for the
parties it is noticed that.A”o;n1.yf requires to be
considered in this appeal is with regfard itomeompensation that is
payable in respectcifya Irinoidsideath who is aged 10 years.
6. Court in the case of LATA
WADHWA Aired’ OTfiIEf_RiS_ STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
.–‘V.reporVteid 51Ri2eo.1._rssUPREME courrr 3213 as held as
ii–f0i1QiVvs.:y– i
ii ‘- as the award of compensation in case
“of ch_iidiieri’ are concerned, Shri Justice Chandrachud, has
dividvergi them into two groups, first group between the age
it group of 5 to 30 years and the second group between the
‘age group of 10 to 15 years. In case of children between
the age group of 5 to 10 years, a uniform sum of
Rs.50’OOO/– has been heid to be payabie by way of
compensation, to which the conventiona! figure of
Rs.25,000/- has been added and as such to the heirs of
/
the 14 children, a consolidated sum of Rs.75,000/«» each
has been awarded. So far as the children in the age
group of ‘E0 to 15 years, there are 10 such children, who»,
died on the fateful day and having found their contriybdtiioltiiigi’:_x’2
to the family at Rs.12,000/~ per annum, 11 multiplier “‘
been applied, particularly depending upon thee-ag_e”.of’th:e..
father and then the conventional iicompensation._oVf”V”
Rs.25,000/- has been added to ‘c;a_As”-e.._
consequently, the heirs of each’, of the, deceasedA..a~boy;e
10 years of age, have been granted compensation the
tune of Rs.1,57,000/g~e.ach_ chas-e’VVof_.the death an
infant, there may have«been”.nof.,actiiaVE;’pectiniary benefit
derived by its parents d_u_r:i’r:g eghild’slVi1’etirrie. But this
will not net:eVsVs–ariiyA_ ti1eii”‘ii’p~a.rent?si claim and
prospective'”loseiwili a’va.i’idfc!aim provided that the
parents reasonable expectation
of ;§eeLl’nie.r”g.gi:eri’§ié,rii ifjithie: marred lived. This principle
was”*.|_aid ,|f4tiVC)i.l:e”e.__iOi’. Lords in the famous case
of Taiff=–V_’aii=.V Rail ‘ce.i.\i;=,ielik;ns, 1913 AC 1, and Lord
Ail:-inson said thus:
” ………. .,ali that is necessary is that a
reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit
f~._S~hould be entertained by the person who
sues. it is quite true that the existence of
A this expectation is an inference of fact —
there must be a basis of fact from which the
inference can reasonably 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.”
At the same time, it must be held that a mere
speculative possibility of benefit is not sufticientgvyg
Question whether there exists a reasonable expect_ati.on*
of pecuniary advantage is always a mixed ques’tion,lg:ot,”‘ ll”.
fact and law. There are several decided cesesdong
point, providing the guidelines {for :deter’minatio:n’–.gVofy”iV
compensation in such cases butfwe–._do not._tnEnl<«. it
necessary for us to advert,i_as__the clainiants hlajdv«-not
adduced any materials on theireaisonablei expectation of
pecuniary benefits, which theirtp'arentsuei:im’ation. Mrliilvariman, appearing for the TISCO on
V ,su,b’rnitted that the compensation determined for
2 ‘the chiVl’d’ren’g;_etaIl age groups could be doubled, as in his
views” also, the determination made is grossly
ina”deti.uate. Loss of a child to the parents is
it ‘iii’:.recoupable, and no amount of money could
VV”co’mpensate the parents. Having regard to the
environment from which these children were brought,
their parents being reasonably well placed officials of the
Tata Iron and Steel Company, and on considering the
submission of Mr.Nariman, we would direct that the
compensation amount from the children between the age
group of 5 to 10 years shoutd be three times. in other
words, it should be Rs.1.5 takhs, to which the
conventionai figure of Rs.50,000f– should be added and
thus the totai amount in each case would be Rs.2.00.___
lakhs. So far as the children between the age grou_pt.Vof».._’ii~.._
10 to 15 years, they are alt student of Class VI to
and are chitdren of employees of TlSCO.
itself has a tradition that every employee can”get’:o’i’ie’.’ofV’_’_r.V
his child employed in the company.
these facts, in their case, the ¢ont;;’g,u;j¢_Q of 30:3/.v»_’
per annum appear to us toliifijony the.lov__ve’r.sid.e ‘and”‘in
our considered opinion, the”:Vic-o:ntri.butio.n’ ~sl_hv’ould:} be
Rs.24,000/– and insteadt~,.of appropriate
multiplier would be 15. ‘ JT.hereifo»i*’e;;’ theii’eornpe.nsation, so
calculated on _trre_.afore’s’aid* “worked out to
Rs.3.80/–_V?iakh1s;”_V tohwhicih “additional sum or
Rs:v5t}h;uO’Ofi;7»vhas’i;’fVtVo making the total
amount éipayablef-..at’e»Rs._ét.”tQr’§ iakhs for each of the
claimants ofthe afc.resa.’i’d;,deceased children.”
Ifiollowizag’-the___said the judgment, the I-ion’b1e Supreme
V’1Cou’r’t has reiteyriatect its earlier View in a subsequent case in the
ma~riéf..iofV”s}i;_N_T’os’t«1 RANI V/S. RANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS
–reported.i1éV_2O(xJV8 ACJ 1405 by holding as foilowszm
“4. Both the Tribunal and the High Court
completely ignored the factum of toss of life at a
tender age, the future prospect of young man and
mental agony suffered by the claimant. in our
view, the award of €50,000/– on no fault liability in
the case of death of a person is too meagre. in
the pecuiiar facts and circumstances of this case,
we award a lump sum compensation of
?2,50,000/– to the cfaimant aiong with the interest
awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation shall___
be paid by the respondents jointiy and severaiiyfif
8. This Court in the case of S.SANA
ANOTHER V/S. .A.R.RAVISHANKAR Amp oTI:i.E’.r*es’_’;;<é"por:¢dii.i1i
ILR zoos KAR 1896 had also con:sider:ed'iisiir3_il'ar:l'contentiort
and held that in case of a death of__a child'aged'iVbetwe.en .31O–i15.t"
years, compensation that be would be
32,25,000/~ .
9. in View the the Hon’ble apex
Court and thils”Ciourtl,.Vl aurr1~«_lr1ot inclined to take different View
since thereis no othei’-.llgroiunLd’which merits consideration in this
appeal A. and as” stlch and award passed by tribunal
.cann’otlbe,”cfoun’d faulltlllwith or it cannot be said that it suffers
lfrornality on facts or law. Accordingly, judgment and
aWard44liipassedli–.V.’ojr tribunal is hereby confirmed and appeal is
. «._ di,smisse’d,V.