Back
1990 Supreme(Gau) 178
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
J.M.Srivastava, B.P.Saraf, JJ.
Sub Uman Singh Gurung -Appellant
Versus
Seva Ram Dutta -Respondent
Misc.Appeal (First) No. 26 of 1984
Decided On : 17-08-1990
P.C.Gayan, D.K.Das, D.K.Bhattacharyya, A.K.Choudhary
In the case of death of a minor child in a motor accident, the compensation payable to the parents should be determined by taking into consideration the age of the deceased child, the academic and other achievements of the deceased child, the expectations of the parents from the deceased child, and the loss of support and companionship suffered by the parents.
Headnote:
MOTOR ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - DEATH OF MINOR CHILD - EXPECTANCY OF PARENTS - DETERMINATION - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED.
Fact of the Case:
A 7-year-old boy was killed in an accident caused by a motor bus. The parents of the deceased child filed a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the parents. The parents appealed, arguing that the compensation was inadequate.
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate. The court considered the following factors in determining the compensation payable: * The age of the deceased child * The academic and other achievements of the deceased child * The expectations of the parents from the deceased child * The loss of support and companionship suffered by the parents The court held that the parents were entitled to compensation for both the shock and pain suffered by them as well as for the loss of expectancy.
Final Decision: The court enhanced the compensation payable to the parents from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 60,000/-. The court also awarded interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till 30.9.1984 and at the rate of 15% per annum from 1.10.1984 till the date of realization.
This is claimants appeal against the judgment and award dated 21.11.1983 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Kararup), Guwahati.
2. The claimants who are the parents had claimed compensation for the death of their seven years old son, the only child, in an accident on 7.11.77 caused by a motor bus belonging to the respondent No. 1 and at the time driven by the respondent No. 2, which was insured with the respondent No. 3. The claimants had expected their deceased son who was bright in studies to do well in life and accordingly the claim was made for Rs. 1 lakh.
3. The claim was resisted by the respondents on the ground inter alia that the claim was excessive. The learned Tribunal on consideration of the evidence produced, by the impugned judgment and award held, that the deceased had died as a result of the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bug for which the opposite parties the present respondents were liable. The compensation payable was determined at Rs. 20,000/- which was allowed.
4. Aggrieved, the claimants have come in appeal and Sri D. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing on their behalf has contended that the deceased was the only son of the claimants, was a good student, also good in sports and considering that the, claimant father was a Junior Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army, it was expected that the deceased would have done well in life and hence compensation determined at Rs,20,(JOO/-was too much inadequate. The learned counsel for the claimants has contended that atleast Rs. 1 lakh should be allowed.
5. The respondent No.l and 2 have not put appearance in this appeal.
6. Shri A. K. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Co. respondent No. 3 has argued that considering the age of the deceased the compensation allowed was for and adequate and further that in the case of minor, the expectancy or dependency is just speculation and accordingly it was not safe criteria for determination of compensation.
7. We have considered the submissions for the parties and the evidence on record.
8. The question for determination in this appeal is that whether the compensation allowed was adequate and if not what should be the compensation payable.
9. Shri A. K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Co. has relied upon The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vt. Sangey Tsering, (1989) 1 GLR 416 (1989 (1) GLJ 72) where this Court took the view that the injury which is caused on the death of a minor, is related to the mental shock and pain sustained by the claimants and compensation is to b- allowed on that basis. The determination of compensation on the basis of working out dependency did not find favour.
10. Shri D. K. Bhattachaiyya, learned counsel for the claimants appellants has cited K. L. Pasriya vs. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co., 1986 ACJ 252 (P & H) where for the death of a 5 year old son Rs. 20,000/- was allowed as compensation to the parents and it was held that dependency and multiplier had to be evaluated for the purpose; M. M Patel vs. Union of India, 1982 ACJ 426 (Gujrat) where for the death of 13 year old boy Rs. 54,000/- had been allowed, it was held that in evaluating a chance, positive approach to life and optimistic view should be taken ; M. Mazzafar vs. M. Sheikh, 1980 ACJ 516 (J&K) where for the death of a son 12 year old compensation was enhanced from Rs. 10.000/- to Rs. 25,000/-; Abdul Wahab vs. Chandra Prakash, 1986 ACJ 1087, (Allahabad), where for the death of 2 year old in an accident Rs. 25.00G/- as compensation- Rs. 5.000/-for mental shock and agony suffered and Rs. 20.000/- towards reasonably foreseeable support in the normal course was allowed ; Allah Baksh vs. D.N. Panda, 1983 ACJ 650 (Orissa) where for a 8 month old female child Rs. 8,000/- hid been allowed ; E. Enjanadevi vs. Aramugham 1983 ;ACJ 625 (Madras) where for the death of 12 year old son Rs. 15,000/- had been allowed.
11. It should
