1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRSTAPPEAL NO. 712 OF 2009 I. C. I. C. I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. - - Appellant Versus 1. Dinesh S/o Lala Shimpi and others - - Respondent Shri S. S. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri R. R. Mantri, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 18TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard the counsel extensively. The appellant/insurance company feels aggrieved by the award of learned Member M. A. C. T. Shahda dated 12th April, 2007, awarded Rs. 2,25,000/- for death of fifteen months old daughter of the claimants. 2. The counsel for the insurance company/appellant urged that though claimants are entitled for compensation, but the learned Judged erred in 2 computing it. 3. In order to substantiate contention the counsel has taken recourse to the judgment of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sayed Ibrahim and others (2007 AIR SCW 6197) and also to the judgment of Kaushlya Devi Vs. Karan Arora and others AIR (2007) Supreme Court 1912. The counsel for the claimant urged that though the girl was fifteen month a teen age, however, the loss suffered by the appellant the agony, mental trauma they have under gone needs consideration coupled with their age being 36 and 31 years old. 4. The application of II Schedule under Section 163 A by the learned Judge for applying multiplier of 15 may not be doubted, however the assessment by the learned judge for total compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- comes to controversy, and even if it is measured to the facts of the present case. It is obvious, compensation should not be far fetched and should not be betrayal to the provisions. 5. The observations of the Hon'ble Lordships in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sayed Ibrahim and others in paragraph 6 and also in paragraph 7 referred below needs consideration. "6. There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality 3 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 factor would be age of parents. 07. In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by the parents during the child's life-time. But this will not necessarily bar the parents' claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim provided the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly Vs. Jenkins (1913) AC 1, and Lord Atkinson said thus : "... all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact- there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that 4 he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can I think, be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them." 6. It is obvious, the deceased of fifteen months girl was a non earning member. Her parents are left behind, but question of dependency will not be projected. It was the loss suffered by the parents of enjoying company with their daughter and the dreams they have for the future prospects of their daughter needs consideration. Having applied any scale the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- appears to be at high pedestal. The notional income of such infant of fifteen months is difficult to be calculated. The uncertainty in the life also cannot be foreclosed. The earnings claimed by the appellant though appear to be cozy, however cannot be accepted as a gospel, in the scenario even if the multiplier of 15 is kept, the deceased of fifteen months old could not have yearly income of Rs. 15,000/-, as has been done by the learned Judge in the paragraph 18 of the judgment. Consequently, amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- awarded as compensation is reduced to an amount to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh). O R D E R The appeal is partly allowed. The order is modified from the compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh). Other 5 terms remain unaltered. No costs. The statutory deposits be remitted to the learned Member Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal Shahda. [ K. U. CHANDIWAL ] JUDGE bsb/June 09/FA 712.09