IMPORTANT POINT
Where in the motor vehicular accident deceased child is of a tender age in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at time of death nor prospects of future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. Hence neither income of deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor financial loss suffered by parents is capable of mathematical computation.

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. —

Leave granted.

1.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which dismissed the appeal filed by the husband of the appellant. In the appeal, appellant was respondent no.4. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

(a)A claim petition was filed by the husband of the appellant, namely, Balwant Singh in terms of Sections 166, 140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act’). In the claim petition, the present appellant was impleaded as respondent no.4 while the driver of the vehicle no. HR 41/3347 and the owner of the vehicle were impleaded as respondents 1 and 2. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurer’) was impleaded as respondent no.3. In the claim petition filed on 15.3.1997 which was registered on 17.3.1997, it was alleged that the son of Balwant Singh (claimant) and the present appellant, died as a result of the vehicular accident in which the aforesaid car was involved. The deceased was aged about 14 years and was the only son of the appellant. The accident took place on 5.2.1997 when Karan Arora (respondent no.1) came to the house of the claimant and requested the deceased to accompany him in his car. The car was being driven by the said Karan Arora. The vehicle met with an accident. The deceased lost his life. A claim of Rs.10,00,000/- was made.

(b)On receipt of the notice from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short the ‘Tribunal’) responses were filed by the respondents. Respondent no.2 i.e. the owner of the vehicle stated that the driver was a minor and the claim petition was not maintainable against him. Though some other points were urged they were treated not to be of consequences by the Tribunal. The insurer took the stand that since the death of the deceased was never intimated to the insurer and also about the alleged accident, the petition appears to have been a collusive petition. The claim in the claim petition was that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The insurer took the stand that it was not liable as it was the admitted stand that the driver did not have any driving licence. The present appellant as respondent no.4 accepted the claim in the claim petition and prayed that the same be accepted and indicated that she was entitled to share in the amount of compensation.

2.The Tribunal on consideration of the rival stand came to hold that the accident took place in the manner described. Since the driver was a minor he did not have any liability but the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay compensation as per the award. It was further held that the insurer has no liability as the driver was not authorized to drive any vehicle. A sum of rupees one lakh was awarded along with 12% interest from the date of the claim till realization. The manner in which the amount was to be deposited was also indicated in the award. An appeal was preferred by the claimant Balwant Singh which as noted above was dismissed by the High Court.

3.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the awarded amount is meagre and considering the background from which deceased came and his academic career the award should have been more. Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle on the other hand supported the order. Similar was the stand of the insurance company.

(a)In Mallett v. McMonagle1 1970 (AC) 166, Lord Diplock analysed in detail the uncertainties which arise at various stages in making a rational estimate and practical ways of dealing with them. In Davies v. Taylor2 (1974) AC 207, it was held that the Court, in looking at future uncertain events, does not decide whether on balance one thing is more likely to happen than another, but merely puts a value on the chances. A possibility may be ignored if it is slight and remote. Any method of calculation is subordinat to the necessity for compensating the real