In the case of a minor child with no earning capacity, compensation for death in a motor accident should be determined on the basis of a notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum and a multiplier of 15, as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In such cases, a lump sum compensation should not be less than Rs. 1,50,000.

SAMANTA AND BOSE, JJ.

( 1 ) IN presence of the learned advocates for the claimant-appellant and the respondent insurance company this appeal is taken up for disposal along with the application filed by the claimant-appellant for amendment of the claim application by enhancing the claimed amount, as the question involved in this appeal is covered by the Division bench judgment of this court in Suniti mondal v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , 2005 ACJ 272 (Calcutta ).

( 2 ) THE claim case arose out of a motor accident which happened on 20. 3. 1998 involving the offending vehicle bearing no. MWU 5036 in which the victim girl, named, Shefali Das, succumbed to the injuries suffered in the said accident. The application for compensation was made under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988. Involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident was proved before the Claims Tribunal. The claimant appellant also led evidence to the extent that the victim girl was minor being aged about one and half years. No evidence, however, was led on behalf of respondent insurance company to prove otherwise. It was further established in evidence before the Claims Tribunal that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

( 3 ) IN this state of affairs, the learned claims Tribunal determined the compensation payable to the claimant-appellant at rs. 54,500 without disclosing the reasons on the basis of which the same was determined. It was merely held that in view of the Claims Tribunal, the compensation of rs. 54,500 would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The Claims Tribunal even for the purpose of determination of compensation did not adhere to the structured formula as per the Second Schedule to the act.

( 4 ) THE Division Bench of this court in the above reported decision on the question of determination of compensation payablen a death case in the motor accident where the victim is a child below 15 years of age has held as under:"we are not required to labour much to find out an answer to this question as the Division Bench of this court in a decision in Fatama Matul Bibi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2003 ACJ 365 (Calcutta), after taking into consideration large number of decisions on the point has decided by holding that in case of a victim who is a minor having no possibility of earning at the relevant point of time, compensation should be determined on footing of a non-earning person having the notional income as provided in the Second Schedule to the said Act and by following the structured formula as framed therein. In particular such determination should be made by applying the multiplier of 15 as provided therein to the notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum wherever the victim is a child below 15 years of age. Although there are other decisions of different High Courts as cited on behalf of the insurer respondent which did not uniformly determine the quantum of compensation by applying the multiplier of 15 in each case of death of a minor below the age of 15 years on the notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum but we are inclined to follow the decision of the Division Bench of our High Court as cited above. In this regard, we may further add that unless there are special and some other circumstances which do not reasonably require determination of compensation on such basis, in all cases of death of minors below the age of 15 years having no possibility of earning at the relevant point of time or soon thereafter, there should be determination of compensation on such structured formula basis on the notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum. We are further of the view that in all such cases a lump sum compensation should under no circumstances be less than a sum of Rs. 1,50,000. Because such compensation should be granted not purely upon consideration of the factor of loss of dependency, but at the same time upon consideration of various other factors. It is well-known tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document