Vikas vs Sachida Nand Dubey and Others

Indermeet Kaur, J.—The Award impugned is the Award dated 25.04.2011 whereby a total compensation of Rs. 1,93,000/- had been awarded in favour of the Petitioner/injured who was a child victim. The victim i.e. master Vikas had sustained injuries on 17.08.2006 in an accident; oral and documentary evidence was led; the aforenoted amount had been awarded in favour of the Petitioner.

This appeal has been impugned on the following three grounds; it is stated that the "loss of matrimonial prospects", "permanent disability" suffered by the Petitioner as also the notional income calculated at Rs. 15,000/- per annum was on wrong premise; even if minimum wages criteria would have been applied, the income of the child would have been more than Rs. 3,000/- per month, the impugned Award not having being dealt with this contention in the right perspective and holding that the Petitioner is entitled only to Rs. 15,000/- per annum which was notified in the second Schedule in the year 1994; impugned Award suffers from an infirmity and is liable to be set aside.

The facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that master Vikas was aged 9 years on the date of accident. Claim Petition had been filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. In the case of R.K. Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal and Others, guidelines have been laid down by the Apex Court to award compensation in the case of a child victim. This was a death case; notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum was taken to be the criteria for children under 15 years of age; by adhering to this figure as contained in the second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act to which the correct multiplier of 15 was applied; this has been correctly considered by the Tribunal; taking notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum, the multiplier of 15 has been applied and after giving the benefit of 50% disability which has been suffered by the victim (having been suffered a crush injuries on his left leg and traumatic compound fracture of the distal end tibia) the figure of Rs. 15,000/-X15 further multiplied by 50/100; the Apex Court in JT (2010) 13 SC 38 Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar had laid down the formula for assessment of compensation payable in a case of permanent disability. In the instant case, disability suffered by the child victim was 50%. A sum of Rs. 1,12,000/- has been awarded on account of this disability suffered by the Petitioner; this was on account of the future prospects which have been curtailed of the Petitioner.

The Award has also awarded a sum of Rs. 8,500/- for the medical expenses incurred by the victim; this was in view of the bills which have been filed on record which were in the sum of Rs. 8,402.48 paise. Compensation for "pain and sufferings" and "loss of amenities" has been awarded @ Rs. 15,000/-; "special diet and conveyance" has been awarded in the sum of Rs. 7,000/-; Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded for "loss of childhood play''. These factors had been factored after going through the injuries which had been suffered by the victim; 50% disability had been noted in the right lower limb and this was evidenced in the testimony of PW-1 who had also deposed that skin grafting of the right lower limb had also been required; there was a partial loss of squatting also because of a stiff ankle. All these factors were rightly considered in the correct perspective keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Malik (Supra) and the judgment of Raj Kumar (Supra). Submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that separate amounts under the head of "permanent disability" and "loss of matrimonial prospects" has not been considered is thus of no consequence as the impugned award has taken into account the "loss of earning capacity of the child due to disability" for which a sum of Rs. 1,12,000/- has been awarded; as noted supra for "loss of childhood play" Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded; these are covered by the heads now pleaded i.e. "loss of matrimonial prospects" and "permanent disability" and merely because there is a juxtaposition of words and phrases which are covered by a different phraseology it does not mean that the Petitioner would be entitled to compensation under separate heads on these counts again. In case a separate head is made for "loss of matrimonial prospects" and "permanent disability" it would definitely overlap the compensation awarded under the heads of "loss of earning capacity due to disability" and "loss of childhood play".

In the case of child a victim minimum wages have not to be taken into account and this has been held by the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Malik (Supra). In these circumstances, notional income @ Rs. 15,000/- per annum was rightly applied; impugned Award suffers from no infirmity.

Dismissed.