IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4743 of 2003 Between: Abdul Hameed & another .. Appellants AND T. Lalitha & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4743 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.207 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-District Judge, Nizamabad, dated 27.10.2003. 2. The parents of the deceased Samreen Begum sued the owner and insurer of private bus No.AP 25U 818 for a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- alleging that due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver in high speed and dashing against Samreen Begum standing by the side of the road on 11.01.2002 at 8.00 a.m., Samreen Begum, who fell under the front wheel of the bus, died on the spot. The parents claimed the deceased, aged 12 years, to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a labourer and that there were no other legal heirs or dependents of the deceased. 3. While the first respondent/owner of the bus remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the second respondent/insurer denied the claims of the claimants and contended that the second respondent/insurer was not informed about the accident. The second respondent/insurer alleged the compensation claimed to be excessive. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. It examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 during the enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting Ex.A-1-First Information Report and Ex.A-4-Charge Sheet to be probablising the claims of the eye witness-P.W.2 about the bus driver being responsible for the accident with his rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal also concluded that Ex.A-5-insurance policy shows the ownership of the vehicle with the first respondent and its insurance with the second respondent. The Tribunal took the age of the deceased as six years from Ex.A-3-Post Mortem Report and disbelieved the version of the deceased earning any income as a labourer. It refused to take the notional income under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the basis and considered it just and reasonable to award Rs.50,000/- towards the death of the only child of the claimants, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,500/- separately making a total of Rs.62,500/-. The Tribunal made the compensation payable with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. It directed the apportionment of the compensation between the parents. 6. The claimants contended before this Court that the deceased who died at the age of 12 years was earning Rs.100/- per day as a labourer and the compensation could have been so calculated on the age of the mother as the basis for arriving at the appropriate multiplier. The Tribunal should have followed PUTTAMMA AND ANOTHER VS. KRISHNAPPA AND ANOTHER[1], wherein the Karnataka High Court granted a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of a 14 year old boy. Hence, the claimants desired that the balance compensation claimed by them also be awarded. 7. Heard Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel representing Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned standing counsel for the second respondent/insurer. None appeared for the first respondent/owner of the vehicle before this Court. 8. The conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the bus driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving, the ownership of the first respondent and the subsisting insurance of the vehicle with the second respondent remained unchallenged and have become final. 9. The only question that remains for consideration is the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the claimants are entitled. 10. The fact that the deceased, stated to be aged about 6 years as per Ex.A-3-Post Mortem Report, was the only child of the claimants by then was not in dispute and even if she were not earning anything by herself, the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assumes all non-earning persons to be earning Rs.15,000/- per annum. The appropriate multiplier as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for all victims upto the age of 15 years is 15 and if 1/3rd of such income were to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,80,000/-. 11. Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel representing Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants rightly relied on NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SATENDER AND OTHERS[2], wherein the Apex Court was considering the death of a child aged 9 years. The Apex Court pointed out that 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 Apex Court applied the principles laid down in STATE OF HARYANA VS. JASBIR KAUR[3] and considered it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. The learned counsel also relied on R.K. MALIK AND ANOTHER VS. KIRAN PAL AND OTHERS[4], wherein also the Apex Court referred to the real problem that arises in the cases of death of children as they are not earning at the time of the accident and in most cases, they were still studying and not working. The Apex Court referred to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in this regard even with reference to compensation payable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and further referred to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, providing for deduction of 1/3rd consideration towards living expenses. The Apex Court, accordingly, calculated the loss of dependency on the basis of such notional income. It also referred to non-pecuniary compensation awardable in such cases and while noting the difficulty in quantification of such damages, the Apex Court upheld the enhancement of compensation by the High Court towards non- pecuniary damages. 12. On application of the principles of the two precedents to the facts of the present case, the request of the claimants before the Tribunal for grant of a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on the basis of PUTTAMMA’s case (supra 1) has to be straight away upheld. The compensation granted by the Tribunal was meagre and has to be enhanced. 13. However, on the enhanced portion of the compensation, interest can be confined to 6% per annum in view of the length of time for which such interest has to be paid, while proportionate costs, of course, shall follow suit. 14. Therefore, the award, dated 27.10.2003, in O.P.No.207 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-District Judge, Nizamabad, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.87,500/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to compensation already awarded by the impugned award. The enhanced compensation also shall be shared in the same proportion as the original compensation under the impugned award. 15. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17th February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4743 of 2003 Date: 17th February, 2011 KL [1] 2000 ACJ 103 [2] AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 324 [3] (2003) 7 SCC 484 [4] II (2009) ACC 705 SC