Sh. Surender Kumar and Another vs Vikas and Others

Indermeet Kaur, J.—This appeal has impugned the Award dated 29.04.2010 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- had been awarded qua the death of the child victim aged 12 years Master Veer Singh. The learned Counsel for the Appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the deduction of 1/3rd had been affected by the Tribunal; his contention in view of the judgment of R.K. Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal and Others, followed by a Bench of this Court in Chiranji Lal Ors. v. Mangat Ram and Ors. reported in I (2010) ACC 855; No. deduction is permissible in the case of a child victim; the contention is that the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- p.a. was correctly applied to which multiplier of 15 was added; No. deductions were permissible hereafter; the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- towards the pecuniary loss.

Record shows that the deceased Master Veer Singh was aged 12 years; claim petition had been filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the judgment of R.K. Malik (supra), the notional income of the child victim as per the structured formula of Section 163A of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act applicable in such like cases was correctly taken at Rs. 15,000 p.a. to which correct multiplier of 15 was added. The Apex Court in the case of R.K. Malik (supra), has made following observations:

Under the Second Schedule of the Act in case of a non-earning person, his income is notionally estimated at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The Second Schedule is applicable to claim petitions filed u/s 163A of the Act. The Second Schedule provides for the multiplier to be applied in cases where the age of the victim was less than 15 years and between 15 years but not exceeding 20 years. Even when compensation is payable u/s 166 read with Section 168 of the Act, deviation from the structured formula as provided in the Second Schedule is not ordinarily permissible, except in exceptional cases. (see Abati Bezbaruah v. Geological Survey of India, United India Insurance Company ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahan and U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra)

The Second Schedule also provides for deduction of 1/3rd consideration towards expenses which the victim would have incurred on himself if he had lived. As compensation for loss of dependency is to be calculated on the basis of notional income because the deceased was a child. It by necessary implication takes into account future prospects, inflation, price rise, etc. Therefore keeping in view the Second Schedule of the Act, this Court does not see any reason to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal as well as the High Court insofar as award of pecuniary compensation to the dependants/claimants is concerned.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has pointed out that the Second Schedule and the structured formula contained therein had been adhered to in the impugned order which calls for No. interference. This submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent is forceful and is evident from the ratio laid down in R.K. Malik (supra). The Apex Court has noted that the structured formula has to be strictly adhered to; this structured formula clearly states that 1/3rd has to be deducted as expenses. Expenses had been rightly considered keeping in view the fact that had the victim lived he would have incurred 1/3rd expenses on himself. The finding in the impugned Award on this count calls for No. interference.

Admittedly, sum of Rs. 75,000/- has been awarded under the head of "pain and sufferings" and another sum of Rs. 75,000/- for "loss of future prospects": total awarded amount is Rs. 3 lacs; there is No. infirmity in this calculation.

Appeal has No. merit; it is dismissed.