* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 29.8.2011 + MAC Appeal No. 739/2010 SH. SURENDER KUMAR & ANR. Appellants Through: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate. Versus VIKAS S/O. SH. SATVEER & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE [ENTITY] 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes [ENTITY], J. (Oral)
1. 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 [ENTITY]. 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 [PRECEDENT] followed by a Bench of this court in [PRECEDENT]; 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.
2. Record shows that the deceased Master [ENTITY] was aged 12 years; claim petition had been filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. In view of the judgment of [PRECEDENT] (supra), the notional income of the child victim as per the structured formula of [SECTION] of the [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 [PRECEDENT] (supra), has made following observations:-
"14. Under the [SECTION] of the Act in case of a non-earning person, his income is notionally estimated at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The [SECTION] is applicable to claim petitions filed under [SECTION] of the Act. The [SECTION] 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 under [SECTION] read with [SECTION] of the Act, deviation from the structured formula as provided in the [SECTION] is not ordinarily permissible, except in exceptional cases. (see [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT])
16. The [SECTION] 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 [SECTION] 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."
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the [SECTION] 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 [PRECEDENT] (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.
4. 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.
5. Appeal has no merit; it is dismissed.
[ENTITY], J.
AUGUST 29, 2011 rb