JUDGMENT :

KAILASH PRASAD DEO, J.

1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Alok Lal in M.A. No. 2/2018 and learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, Mr. Vikas Pandey in M.A. No. 340/2019.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. as well as claimant have preferred these two appeals assailing the same and common award dated 04.07.2017, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribag, in Claim Case No. 75/2011, whereby the claimant namely, Masomat Sunita Devi has been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of framing of issues i.e. on 23.04.2014 to be paid within 30 days, failing which the award amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, Mr. Vikas Pandey, has submitted that claimant has preferred the appeal for enhancement of the award and relied upon the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Chetan Malhotra vs. Lala Ram, (2016) SSC Online Del. 2981. Para 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 and 71 of the aforesaid judgment may profitably be quoted hereunder:

“65. Having regard to the fluctuating trends in CPI (IW), this court finds the Cost Inflation Index (CII) determined and notified by the Ministry of Finance in Government of India under Section 48 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for each financial year, to be a better method to off-set the effect of inflation on the real value of money. This approach, if followed, would ensure that there is no inconsistency in the awards of compensation in cases of death of children. [R.K. Malik (supra) and Balram Prasad vs. Kumar Saha, (2014) 1 SCC 384]. Since the amount which requires to be subjected to correction was determined by decision in R.K. Malik wherein cause of action had arisen on 10.11.1997, the financial year 1997-98 is taken as the “base year.”

66. For ready reference, the rates of Cost Inflation Index (CII) notified by the government till date, to the extent necessary, are reproduced in the table given below:

CONCLUSIONS

67. In the considered view of this Court, the cases for compensation on account of death of children in motor vehicular accident cases ought to be dealt with by considering the claim towards pecuniary damages (towards loss to estate), in accordance with the age-group wise categories as in R.K. Malik (supra); the first category being of children less than 10 years' in age, the second category being of children more than 10 years' and up to 15 years' in age, and the third category 3 of children more than 15 years' but not having attained the age of majority (18 years). The children in the third category would ordinarily be of such age group as is generally receiving formal school education or those that are (being) imparted special training so as to be equipped with requisite skills to be gainfully employed in a variety of trades. They are after all nearing adulthood and thus, on the threshold of becoming self-reliant. In such cases, the prospects of their employability and earnings in future or present, based on evidence adduced about their academic track record or training in special talents or skills, would need to be borne in mind. As in Lata Wadhwa (supra), the claim for pecuniary damage