- (1.) HEARD Shri D. S. Manral, counsel for the appellants and Shri D. S. Patni, counsel for the respondent No. 1 2. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by f the claims tribunal. 3. By the present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellants have prayed for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the claims tribunal vide judgment and award dated 9-1-2005 in M. A. C. P. No. 191 of 2005. 4. Briefly stated, a motor accident claim pe tition being M. A. C. P. No. 191 of 2005 was filed for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of the death of Arjun in a motor accident. According to the claimants, on 14-10-2005 at about 12. 45 p. m. at Ramnagar-Ranikhet Motor Marg near village Sunderkhal, when Arjun (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was standing beside the road, Bus No. U. A. 04 B/4187 which was coming towards Ramriagar rashly and negli gently crushed the deceased as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. It has been stated that the claimants have suffered mental agony due to the sudden death of their son. The claimants have, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation. 5. A written statement has been filed by the owner of the vehicle in question, namely. Nandaballabh. It has been submitted that the driver was driving the vehicle cautiously and in the left side. The vehicle in question was insured with the National Insurance Company and the insurance company is liable to indem nify the compensation, if any. 6. The National Insurance Company Lim ited has filed a written statement. It has been submitted that the insurance company has not been informed about the accident in question. The defendant No. 1 i. e. owner of the Bus has to prove that the Bus was being driven by the driver having a valid driving license and the papers relating to the vehicle were in or der at the time of accident. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the claims tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1. As to whether the deceased Arjun son of Rajendra Prakash died on 14-10-2005 at village Sunderkhal P. S. Ramnagar due to crushing by the Bus No. U. A. 04 B/4187 by driving the same rashly and negligently ?
(2.) AS to whether the defendant No. 1 has violated the insurance policy and as such the defendant No. 2 is not liable to indemnify the compensation? To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to get and from whom ? 8. The claimants have examined P. W. I Rajendra Prakash. In the documentary evi dence, the claimants have produced 4 docu ments as per list 6 ga. 9. The defendants have not adduced any oral evidence. In the documentary evidence, the defendant No. 1 has filed 8 documents as per list 18 ga and postmortem report i. e. pa per No. 19 ga. 10. While deciding as to whether the de ceased Arjun son of Rajendra Prakash died on 14-10-2005 at village Sunderkhal P. S. Ramnagar due to crushing by the driver of bus No. U. A. 04 B/4187 who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, the claims tribunal has taken into consideration the state ment of P. W. I Rajendra Prakash who has stated that on 14-10-2005 when his son was standing beside the road, Bus No. UA 04 B/4187 which was coming from Bhatronjkhan and was being driven rashly and negligently crushed the deceased as a result of which he died on the spot. The statement of P. W. I Rajendra Prakash remained unrebutted. The claims tribunal has recorded the finding that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. 11. While deciding as to whether the owner of the bus in question has violated the insur ance policy the claims tribunal has recorded the finding after taking into consideration pa per No. 6 ga/4 which is insurance cover note and shows that the vehicle in question was insured with the National Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle has not violated the insurance policy. 12. While deciding with regard to quan tum of compensation, the claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards com pensation in lump sum. The claims tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-towards funeral expenses. Thus, a sum of Rs. 62,000/-has been awarded towards compensation. 13. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the claims tribunal has not considered the future loss and future expenditure on account of death of the deceased. 14. In the judgment of Kaushalya Devi v. Karan Arora and others 2007 ACJ 1870: (AIR 2007 SC 1912) the Apex Court has held as under:- "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 future increase in their income or chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncer tainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and, thereafter, ad vancement 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. " 15. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender & Ors. , AIR 2007 SC 324, the Apex Court has observed as under: "9. There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendor of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measures. The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non-earning person. The fu ture of a child is uncertain. Where the de ceased was a chilled, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, be comes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents. 10. In case of death of an infant. There may have been no actual pecuniary benefit de rived by its parents during the child's lifetime. 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 en tertained 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 reason ably be drawn, but I wish to express my em phatic 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 sup port of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary infer ence 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 : (AIR 2001 SC 3218 ). 11. This Court in Lata Wathwa's case (su pra) while computing compensation made dis tinction between deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. 12. In case 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 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 thereaf ter advancement in life are so many that noth ing 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 computa tion. " 16. The Apex Court in the case of T. N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and others, (2005) 6 SCC 236 : (AIR 2005 SC 2985), has held that in a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensa tion to be awarded by the Tribunal/court should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. "8. The assessment of damages to com pensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e. g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have con tributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together. 9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct there from such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase. 10. Much of the calculation necessarily re mains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many impon derables. In every case "it is the overall pic ture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. " 17. In view of the aforesaid, I deem it proper to enhance the amount of compensa tion from Rs. 62,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/ -. 18. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the interest given on the amount of compensation is too meagre. 19. In Managing Director, T. N. S. T. C. v. Sripriya and others (2007 (67) ALR 813 : (2007 AIR SCW 1884)) Supreme Court, the Apex Court has observed as urider: "10. In regard to choice of the multipli cand the Halsbury's Laws of England in Vol. 34, para 98 states the principle thus: "98. Assessment of damages under the Fa tal Accidents Act, 1976.-The Courts have evolved a method for calculating the amount of pecuniary benefit that dependants could reasonably expect to have received from the deceased in the future. First the annual value to the dependants of those benefits (the mul tiplicand) is assessed. In the ordinary case of the death of a wage-earner that figure is ar rived at by deducting from the wages the' es timated amount of his own personal and liv ing expenses. The assessment is split into two parts. The first part comprises damages for the period between death and trial. The multiplicand is multiplied by the number of years which have elapsed between those two dates. Interest at one-half the short-term investment rate is also awarded on that multiplicand. The second part is damages for the period from the trial on wards. For that period, the number of years which have based on the number of years that the expectancy would probably have lasted; central to that calculation is the probable length of the deceased's working life at the date of death. " 15. Considering the age of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal and the deduction 'for personal expenses do not warrant any inter ference. Worked out on that basis, the entitle ment of the loss of income is Rs. 5,76,000/ -. The other expenses awarded unaltered. In other words, total entitlement of the claimant is fixed at Rs. 6,00,000/. It would be appro priate to fix the rate of interest at 7. 5 % in stead of 9 % as done by the Tribunal and maintained by the High Court. " 20. In view of the aforesaid, the rate of interest on the amount of compensation is en hanced to the extent of 7. 5 per cent per an num. 21. Subject to the aforesaid, the amount of compensation is enhanced to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The rate of interest on the amount of compensation is also modified and en hanced to the extent of 7. 5 per cent per an num. Appeal, therefore, partly succeeds and is allowed. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. .;