IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2025 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision:01.12.2010 Mohammad mushtaq and another ....Appellants versus Gurmail Singh and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.227 of 1995 (O&M) Mst. Salma and another ....Appellants versus Gurmail Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. R.C.Gupta, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The compensation for a death of a person, aged 15/16 years, is the subject matter in FAO No.2025 of 1994 and for death of a 13 years old boy, appeal is covered in FAO No.227 of 1995. 2. The claimants are parents in both the cases. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.40,000/- each in each one of the cases. The cases relate to the accident that had taken place on 04.06.1990 and the petition filed on 30.10.1990. The case had been decided in the year, 1994. FAO No.2025 of 1994 (O&M) - 2 - 3. The determination of compensation for death of minor children where material benefit is to be calculated, definitely takes into account certain guess work and it is difficult to find any universally acceptable formula for determination of compensation. At the time, when the cases were filed and the accident took place, the amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act through Act 54 of 1994 had not come about. The amendment provided for uniform formula of providing for a multiplier of 15 upto the age of 15 years and between 15 to 20, the multiplier suggested was 16. A notional income was also provided through the amendment taking it to be Rs.15,000/-. This has been the basis in several other decisions subsequently where for death of a minor child, the notional income has been taken as Rs.15,000/- and the compensations have been awarded by adopting multiplier in the manner set forth under Schedule-II. There have been also certain deviations from this rule. Such suggestions were done in Lata Wadhwa Versus State of Bihar-2001(8) SCC 197, where there was a prospect of employment in TISCO for children of the retired deceased employees. In M.S.Grewal Versus Deep Chand Sood-2002(1) RCR (Civil) 214, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a case of death of school children, who were all studying in public schools and having regard to the relatively higher economic and social status that the children came from, compensation of Rs.5 lakhs was awarded. R.K.Malik and another Versus Kiran Pal and others, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 403 referred to the decision in Lata Wadhwa as well as M.S.Grewal and had adopted the formula as provided under FAO No.2025 of 1994 (O&M) - 3 - Schedule-II and also suggested that an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- could be given as special damages. This principle was again reiterated by a subsequent judgment in Priya Vasant Kalgutkar Versus Murad Shaikh and others-2010 AIR (SC) 40. The Court was dealing with the case of injuries to a young girl and suggestion for an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- was made through the judgment. 4. Though an attempt was made by the learned counsel to argue that the boy, aged 15 years, was cultivating land and earning Rs.2,000/- per month. I reject the contention and I would proceed to assess the compensation on how it has been dealt with in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K.Malik and Priya Vasant Kalgutkar and hold that the compensation payable could be Rs.2,50,000/- in all and having regard to the fact that Rs.40,000/- has already been awarded by the Tribunal, I will make a provision for Rs.2,10,000/- as payable within a period of 6 weeks. 5. The issue of interest in cases where an award is modified to provide for enhancement will have to be reasonable to see whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at the relevant time was grossly low to provide for such an assessment. In a decision of this Court in Nirmal Maria Versus Ram Singh and others-2006(1) PLR 476, this Court was providing for a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with 9% interest, I would take that to be an instance of a dismissal of a case post-amendment in the MV Act where parameters for determination of compensation were reasonably more certain and the grant of compensation for not even reckoning the method of calculation as FAO No.2025 of 1994 (O&M) - 4 - provided for under the Act could justify the accumulation of interest. In the case of R.K.Malik, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case where the award of the Tribunal had been passed in 2004 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case where the Tribunal had awarded interest only for 4 years from the date of filing of the petition till the award and observed that in the event of non-payment within 30 days, then further payment at 6% would be paid. The High Court had awarded 7 ½% interest which the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not disturb. In Priya Vasant Kalgutkar, the case was again with reference to a situation of an accident after the amending Act. In Priya Vasant Kalgutkar, the Court was only determining a fixed sum, made additional amount with particularly no reference to additional interest for the enhanced portion. I do not find particularly any guidance with reference to the award of interest for the enhanced portion for a re-determination of compensation by a formulation that had come through an amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act which came about subsequent to the rendering of the judgment by the Tribunal. 6. I would, therefore, restrict the interest to arise only in case of non-fulfillment of the condition regarding the payment of amount within 6 weeks and award interest at 6% if the amount is not paid within 6 weeks as referred to above. 7. The appeals are allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 01.12.2010 sanjeev Cross Objection No.55-CII of 2010 in FAO No.1594 of 2003 (O&M)