r IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MACA No.184/2010 Date of Decision: September 16. 2010 CHAMAN ALI KHAN ..... Appellant through Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate versus RAJ KUMAR & ANR Respondents through Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? REKHA SHARMA. I. (ORAL) The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated November 30, 2009 in so far as it relates to the compensation awarded to him on account of the death of his 2 years old daughter who died in a road accident in which his wife had also died. The appellant has been granted ? 7,00,816/- on account of death of his wife against which he has no grievance, but the compensation of? 1,60,000/- which has been awarded on account of the death of the minor child, as per him, is neither just nor reasonable. MACA No.184/2010 Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Jitender Kumar & Anr. versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr, reported in III (2010) ACC 581. In this case, a child of 3 years had died in the accident and the Court after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court, particularly, the judgment in the case of R.K.Malik versus Kiran Pai, reported in IV (2009) SLT 146, awarded a lump-sum compensation of? 3,75,000/-. It has been time and again held by various Courts including the Apex Court that in cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties of life, neither their income at the time of death or the prospects of future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. Hence, the Courts have in such cases awarded lump-sum compensation. In the case of R.KMaUk (supra), young children between the age group of 8-14 years had died and each one of them were awarded compensation to the tune of t 3,75,000/-. I see no reason why the same compensation be not awarded to the appellant on account of the death of his child who, as noticed above, was 2 years of age and in whose case also, the same uncertainties of life prevailed as in the case of R.K.Maiik (supra) and in the case of Jitender Kumar & /I /?/• (s u pra). For the foregoing reasons, I enhance the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal from ? 1,60,000/- to X 3,75,000/-. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has drawn my attention to the impugned award where a sum of? 1,00,000/- has been awarded to the appellant for the loss of his wife and child in addition to the MACA No.184/2010 Page 2 of 3 compensation otiierwise calculated and payable to him! It is submitted that the sum of ^ 3,75,000/- which the appellant has been held entitled to, should be treated as all inclusive including the loss of child and hence, at least ? 50,000/- out of ? 1,00,000/- which he has been granted for the loss of his wife and child should be deducted from the sum of? 3,75,000/-. There is merit in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant shall be entitled to ? 3,75,000/- less ? 50,000/- and also less ? 1,60,000/- which has already been paid to him. Let the balance amount be paid to the appellant by respondent No.2 within six weeks along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the filing of the claim petition till realization. The appeal is disposed of. SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 ka REKHA^ARMA, MACA No. 184/2010 '' Page 3 of 3