S. BANERJEA, P. K. CHATTOPADHYAY, JJ.

( 1 ) IN both the appeals a common question of law as well as fact having been involved, with the consent of the parties these two appeals have been heard analogously and will be governed by the same judgment.

( 2 ) AN appeal being F. M. A. No. 76 of 2001 has been preferred by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 11. 9. 2000 passed by the learned Judge, motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alipore, south 24-Parganas, in M. A. C. Case No. 482 of 1999 allowing the application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and awarding a compensation for a sum of Rs. 60,000 only.

( 3 ) THE victim in this case was a child aged about 12 years and was a student of class III. The appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

( 4 ) ANOTHER appeal being F. M. A. No. 1633 of 2000 has also been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation. In the instant case, the victim was a child aged about 12 years and she was a student of class IV before her death.

( 5 ) IN both the appeals Mr. Banik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended relying on a few decisions of the Hon'ble High Court as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the matter of assessment of compensation safer guidance is to follow the structured formula as indicated in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 treating the notional income of the child as rs. 15,000 per annum.

( 6 ) MR. Das and Mr. Pahari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, insurance company, respectively in the aforesaid two appeals, have joined issue and have argued, inter alia, that in case of death of a child although structured formula may be applied, but the age of the victim as child should not be taken for assessing Rs. 15,000 per annum as notional income. Mr. Das and Mr. Pahari have also relied on a large number of decisions of different High Courts, where structured formula has not been followed.

( 7 ) AFTER considering the respective submissions of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record and also after going through different judgments cited by the parties, it appears to us that in case of death of a child different High Courts have not followed any consistent guidelines either in the matter of fixing any income for the purpose of assessment of compensation or in the matter of using multiplier and decided the cases upon examining in each individual case what would have been the prospects of the child in future and what would have been such loss of income to the family. We feel after considering the entire matter on record and after going through all the judgments that in the matter of assessment of compensation in case of death of a child, the structured formula as indicated in the Second Schedule to the said Act being a safer guidance, is to be followed as held by the Apex Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India assurance Co. Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 428 (SC ). It is true that in the aforesaid case, the victim was not a child but an adult. But we refer to such decision of the Apex Court for the reason that even though in the aforesaid case before the Supreme Court an application was made under section 166 of the said Act and the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule to the said act was introduced for application under section 163-A of the said Act, Supreme court found that even in a case of application under section 166, structured formula is a safer guidance for arriving at the amount of compensation.

( 8 ) IN the case of Kader Kunju v. Maheswaran Pada Nair, 2000 ACJ 524 (SC), apex Court held that a sum of Rs. 2,22,000 would be reasonable compensation for the death of a victim who was 17 years old and a student of Mechanical Engineering.

( 9 ) GUJARAT High Court in the case of ramdevsing V. Chudasma v. Hansrajbhai v. Kodala, 1999 ACJ 1129 (Gujarat), assessed the notional income of the minor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document