THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1915 of 2000 Date:20.11.2009 Between: C. Subba Reddy and another. ..Appellants. and G. Rosi Reddy and another. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1915 of 2000 ORDER: This is an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. First claimant is the father and second claimant is the mother of the child. In an accident which occurred on 14.12.1995, the child of the claimants, aged 12 years died on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor trailor belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. It is alleged in the claim petition that the child was studying 5th standard, was hale and healthy and was also learning tailoring work. On account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor, the child succumbed to the injuries and while the Police registered Crime No.105 of 1995 against the driver of the vehicle, the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal held that the second respondent is to be blamed for the rash and negligent driving of the tractor trailor causing death of the son of the claimants and consequently assessed the compensation at Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.,2500/- towards loss of estate. Thus, in aggregate, Rs.64,500/- was awarded. Hence, the appeal to the extent of disallowed claims. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satender[1] and seeks that the compensation be awarded by applying the similar criteria as adopted in that decision. Child in the aforesaid decision was aged about 9 years and while assessing the compensation in that case on the basis of notional income of the child, the Supreme Court, referring to the principles laid down by the Lordships in para 10 of the judgment as well as after noticing the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar[2], held that the a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- would met the ends of justice. The learned counsel for the second respondent-insurance company, however, contends that the criteria as adopted in the decision of Lata’s case was not followed in latter decision of the Supreme Court and in support of that he has cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kaushlya Devi vs. Karan Arora[3] and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Syed Ibrahim[4] and it is contended that with respect to a child, who has no earning, the assessment of the compensation is impossible of a precise computation. The Supreme Court has reiterated the following paragraph in all the three decisions to above. There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendor of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measure. The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non-earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that in the latest decision of the Supreme Court, with respect to death of a child aged seven years, the Tribunal awarded Rs.51,500/- as compensation. The same was enhanced to Rs.1,52,000/- by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court, however, confirmed the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal in the light of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Jasbir Kaur[5]. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court even in Kaushlya Devi’s case which also makes a reference to the decision in Satender’s case relied upon by the leaned counsel for the appellants. In Kaushlya Devi’s case, child, who had died in the accident, was aged about 14 years and was the only son of the parents. Though a claim of Rs.10,00,000/- compensation was made in the claim petition, though it was stated that the child was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, on the basis of the evidence on record, the income of the deceased child was assessed as a non-earning member and compensation was quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-. The appeals before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court were dismissed. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the second respondent-insurance company, in Satender’s case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants was also noticed and referred to by the Supreme Court in the latter two decisions referred to above and the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- which was upheld in Kaushlya Devi’s case squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case also, there is no evidence in respect of earnings of the child except the statement that he was learning tailoring work. Since he was only 12 years old, the compensation has to be assessed from the point of view of non-earning member. Hence, the impugned award under appeal deserves a modification only to the extent of enhancement of compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Rest of the award needs no interference. The said enhanced amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) shall carry interest of 7.5% from the date of claim till realization. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No order as to costs. __________________________ (VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J) 20th November, 2009 GHN [1] 2007(1) ALD (SC) 1 [2] (2001) 8 SCC 197 [3] AIR 2007 SC 1912 [4] AIR 2008 SC 103 [5] 2003(7) SCC 484