FAO No.4352 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4352 of 2008 Date of decision: November 25, 2008. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant(s) v. Tittar Singh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Vivek Singal, Advocate for the appellant. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This appeal, at the instance of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., is directed against the award dated 9.9.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muktsar whereby a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- has been awarded to the parents (claimants-respondents No.1 & 2) of the deceased Manga Singh, aged about 12 years, who died in a motor vehicular accident on 19.1.2007. In the light of the overwhelming evidence, including the eye witness account of Nasib Kaur (PW3), copy of the FIR, post-mortem report (Ex.P1), no meaningful argument could be advanced on behalf of the FAO No.4352 of 2008 -: 2 :- appellant to assail the findings returned by the Tribunal while deciding issue No.1. It accordingly stands established that Manga Singh, who was stated to be a brilliant student and a good sports person, suffered an untimely death in a motor vehicular accident. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, vehemently assails the findings on issue No.2 as according to him the compensation of Rs.2,25,2000/- granted by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Relying upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Lilu Ram & Ors. v. Bharat Singh & Ors. (FAO No.2165 of 2007), decided on 7.8.2008, the counsel contends that not more than Rs.1,50,000/- ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal. He argues that 1/3rd of the annual income of Rs.15,000/- of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses before determining the compensation amount. Having heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the impugned award, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation amount assessed by the Tribunal. In Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2001 ACJ 1735, their Lordships of the Supreme Court drew a distinction between the children in the age group of 5-10 years on one hand and in the age group of 10-15 years on the other hand. In the case of school-going children in the age group of 10-15 years, their annual contribution was assessed to Rs.24,000/- and applying the multiplier of 15, their parents were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/- each with an additional sum of Rs.50,000/-. The intricated question as how to assess compensation in the case of accidental death of a child, has again been considered by the FAO No.4352 of 2008 -: 3 :- Supreme Court in the case of Kaushlaya Devi v. Karan Arora & Ors., 2007 ACJ 1870 and their Lordships held as follows:- “In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation.” There can indeed be no golden rule to be applied for measuring the value of the human life and the question becomes more complexed when it pertains to assessment of compensation in the case of a child whose definite income is unknown but the prospects of future income are bright. In such like cases, the Tribunal, before whom the parents or other family members of the victim child appear, is the best authority to look into the facts and other attending circumstances and then to determine as to what should be the just, fair and adequate compensation, of course, to be guided by the settled principles of law. On a query, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as per his deposition, the father of the deceased child is a labourer. Keeping in view the fact that the claimants belong to a poor section of society and FAO No.4352 of 2008 -: 4 :- the deceased child was statedly a brilliant student having instincts towards sports activities, their expectations from the child are required to be taken comparatively on the higher side and then to be computed and translated into monetary terms. In this backdrop and in the light of judicial precedents cited above, the Tribunal appears to have committed no error, either on facts or in law, in assessing Rs.15,000/- as the net contributory annual income of the deceased child. Similarly, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is strictly as per the 2nd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In these circumstances, there was no necessity for the Tribunal to deduct 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased for the reason that what the Tribunal has assessed is not the gross income but the annual income for the purposes of “assessing compensation” which means only that part of the income which the child might have actually contributed for the maintenance of his parents. Thus, the general principle of 1/3rd deduction would not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. November 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge