Honble PASAYAT, J.–Leave granted.

(2). Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in an appeal filed by the appellant. In the appeal, the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents 1 and 2 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi (in short the MACT) was questioned. (3). Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:

On 7.5.2002 a child-Anuj, aged about nine years was knocked down by a truck which was the subject matter of insurance with the appellant. As a result of the accident, said child died. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act) claiming compensation. The MACT found that the child was not earning and, therefore, the compensation has to be assessed on the basis of notional income. MACT referred to the second schedule to the Act and held that the notional income as per the said schedule is Rs.15,000/- p.a., but the same was unrealistic. Accordingly the notional income was taken as Rs.30,000/-p.a. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the financial dependency of the parents was fixed at Rs.20,000/- p.a. Considering the age of the parents, multiplier of 17 was adopted. The total financial dependency was calculated at Rs.3,40,000/- for financial loss and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was added for emotional loss and adding a sum of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- was awarded as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the claim petition till payment. An appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court by the appellant which, by the impugned judgment, came to be dismissed.

(4). Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the quantum of compensation fixed is unrealistic. If MACT made a reference to the second schedule, it should have awarded the amount on the basis of the amount indicated in the schedule. By acting on mere surmises and conjectures, MACT should not have held that the notional income is to be taken at Rs.30,000/- p.a.. Multiplier adopted is also on the higher side.

(5). There is no appearance on behalf of the claimants- respondents 1 and 2 in spite of notice.

(6). Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle and the driver supported the stand of the appellant- Insurance Company.

(7). In Mallett vs. McMonagle 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 vs. Taylor (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 subordinate to the necessity for compensating the real loss. But a practical approach to the calculation of the damages has been stated by Lord Wright in Davies vs. Powell Duffryn Associated Colleries Ltd. (1942) 1 All ER 657, in the following words:

"The starting point is the amount of wages which the deceased was earning, the ascertainment of which to some extent may depend on the regularity of his employment. Then there is an estimate of how much was required to be spent for his own personal and living expenses. The balance will give a datum or basic figure which will generally be turned into a lump sum by taking a certain number of years purchase."

(8). In State of Haryana and Anr. vs. Jasbir Kaur and Ors. (2003(7) SCC 484) it was held as under:

"7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be "just and reasonable". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document