HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No.: 211 of 2008 Reserved on: 13.5.2010 Decided on: 31.5.2010 FAO No.211 of 2008 M/s Jammu Casting (P) Ltd. and another ………Appellants. Versus Sudesh Gupta ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the appellants: Mr.Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the award of the court of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan Camp at Nalagarh, dated 18.1.2008, vide which an award of Rs.2,20,000/-, was passed in favour of the claimant (present respondent) Sudesh Gupta, alongwith interest. 2. Briefly stated that the facts of the case are that the petitioner Sudesh Gupta filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation in regard to the death of her daughter Ekta Gupta, aged about 14 years, who was a student and whose death had occurred in an accident that took place on ______________________________________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Nalagarh-Kalka road. The deceased Ekta Gupta was allegedly going on a scooter bearing No.HP-12-1202 with her father Madan Mohan Gupta at a slow speed. The accident took place with Maruti Car No.JK-02M-7576 and Ekta Gupta died due the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. The petitioner had claimed a compensation to the extent of Rs.10.00 lac alleging that the deceased had passed her middle class examination and secured 13th position in Himachal Pradesh and there were good chances of her getting good job and earning huge amount in future and accordingly, the claim was made for a sum of Rs.10.00 lacs. Respondents No.1 and 2 denied the allegations and pleaded that the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned Tribunal: i) Whether on 15.7.2004 at about 8 A.M. at Bagbania respondent No.2 was driving the vehicle No.JK-02M-7576 rashly and negligently and as such caused death of deceased? OPP ii) If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation is petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP iii) Whether the accident was caused on account of rash/negligent driving of the scooter by the rider and the rider, owner and insurer of the scooter are necessary parties to the petition as alleged? OPR iv) Relief. 4. The parties led their evidence and the learned Tribunal, vide its impugned award, held that the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-, alongwith interest. - 3 - 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were that the mother will not inherit the estate of her daughter and the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the dependency and calculated it wrongly and as such, the compensation awarded is too excessive, which deserves to be reduced considerably. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the findings of the learned Tribunal. 8. A strange argument was raised during the course of hearing by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the deceased was a minor daughter, who has to perform marriage and has to settle in the family of her in- laws and, therefore, the loss, if any, would be to the prospective in-laws and not to the petitioner, who was the mother of the deceased. These arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to be rejected, which are rejected accordingly, for the reason that the deceased may be a daughter but she will contribute to the family from her own income till she gets married, may be at any age. Even after her marriage, she may continue making contributions to the family and simply because she is a daughter, it cannot be said that her mother was entitled only to a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which is the compensation payable under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. She - 4 - may or may not perform marriage and may continue to contribute to the family as any other child and the only consideration is that if she was a brilliant student, as has been sought to be proved, she would have been able to achieve a position in the society by getting a good job and would have contributed to the family income. Therefore, the compensation has to be granted keeping in view these facts and it cannot be rejected simply on the ground that the mother will not inherit the estate of her daughter. 9. To substantiate his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Court in Prem Chand & Anr. Versus Parveen Kumar & Ors., 2010(1) Him.L.R. 462, which is a judgment of this court, wherein the claim petition was filed by the brother of the deceased and there were no allegations or proof that they were dependant upon the deceased and, therefore, in that context, it was held by this Court that the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation. 10. Another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant was in Kewal versus Tilak Raj and others, 2008(2) Shim.LC 113, which is not relevant since the case was remanded to implead all the heirs. In that case, it was observed that none of the claimants i.e. sons and daughters were dependant on the deceased. Husband was not impleaded and accordingly, once the case was remanded, no findings had been given, which could be helpful in the present case. - 5 - 11. Next decision relied upon is in Manjuri Bera (Smt) versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 643, wherein the compensation was claimed by a married daughter not dependant upon the deceased. It was observed in that case that the only question before the Apex Court was whether any compensation is payable where the claim was filed by a legal representative of the deceased who was not actually dependant upon him. No case law had been cited in regard to the death of a child and how much compensation is payable in such a case and as to whether the compensation is not payable in case the deceased happens to be a minor daughter of the claimant, as in the present case. 12. I have already observed above that no distinction can be made in case the death has taken place of a daughter and not of a son and the daughter can also contribute with her earnings to her parents. 13. I may make a reference to some of the decisions of this Court, which would be relevant in considering the quantum. The decision in Gulzar Mohammad and another versus Bikka and others, 2000 ACJ 768, where the death had taken place of a child of 6 years and a sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded as compensation in the year 2000. 14. A reference may also be made to the decision in Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another versus Bimal Devi and others, 2000 ACJ 959, where death has taken - 6 - place of a child of 14 years and a sum of Rs.84,000/- was granted. 15. Reference can also be made to the decision in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. versus Gian Chand and others, 2002 ACJ 764, where the deceased was a student of 7th class and was of the age of 13 years. A compensation of Rs.70,000/- was granted which was upheld by this Court. I am not making any distinction in the case in hand on the fact that the deceased was a daughter, though in the above cases, the compensation was being awarded on account of the death of a son. 16. The learned Tribunal has taken assistance from the 2nd Schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and had taken the earning of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum and the deceased being of the age of 15 years, the multiplier applied was that of 15 years. Accordingly, the compensation was assessed at Rs.2,20,000/- including conventional charges at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as funeral charges. The age of the deceased proved before the learned Tribunal was 14 years, as per the certificate Ext.PW-1/A. She, being a student, was not earning anything but as per the assertions made, she was a brilliant student and as such, the compensation awarded in the year 2008 by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive since in the above referred cases, the compensation was awarded many years ago. Thus, the compensation awarded in the present case, keeping in view the lapse of time, cannot be said to be excessive calling - 7 - for an interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly, alongwith costs assessed at Rs.3,000/- to be paid by the appellants to the respondent. May 31, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.