Case: Priya Vasant Kalgutkar Vs. Murad Shaikh

of determining the compensation, or(b) In case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under item (a) above.Injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement/permanent partial disablement and percentage of loss or earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workmens Compensation Act, 1923." 8. Thus, under the head of disability in non-fatal accident, the amount of compensation can be determined only on that basis. 9. We may, however, notice that in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, II (2001) ACC 316 (SC)=V (2001) SLT 826=(2001) 8 SCC 197 , this Court held: "11. So far as the award of compensation in case of children is concerned, Mr. Justice Chandrachud has divided them into two groups, the first group between the age group of 5 to 10 years and the second group between the age group of 10 to 15 years. In case of children between the age group of 5 to 10 years, a uniform sum of Rs. 50,000 has been held to be payable by way of compensation, to which the conventional figure of Rs. 25,000 has been added and as such to the heirs of the 14 children, a consolidated sum of Rs. 75,000 each, has been awarded. So far as the children in the age group of 10 to 15 years, there are 10 such children who died on the fateful day and having found their contribution to the family at Rs .12,000 per annum, 11 multiplier has been applied, particularly, depending upon the age of the father and then the conventional compensation of Rs. 25,000 has been added to each case and consequently, the heirs of each of the deceased above 10 years of age, have been granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,57,000 each. In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the childs lifetime. But this will not necessarily bar the parents claim and prospective loss will found a valid claim provided that 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. v. Jenkins 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 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.’At the same time, it must be held that a mere speculative possibility of benefit is not sufficient. Question whether there exists a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage is always a mixed question of fact and law. There are several decided cases on this point, providing the guidelines for determination of compensation in such cases but we do not think it necessary for us to advert, as the claimants had not adduced any materials on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefits, which the parents expected. In case of a bright and healthy boy, his performances in the school, it would be easier for the authority to arrive at the compensation amount, which may be different from another sickly, unhealthy, rickety child and bad student, but as has been stated earlier, not an iota of material was produced before Shri Justice Chandrachud to enable him to arrive at a just compensation in such cases and, therefore, he has determined the same on an approximation. Mr. Nariman, appearing for TISCO on his own, submitted that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be doubled, as in his view also, the determination made is grossly inadequate. Loss of a child to the parents is irrecoupable, and no amount of money could compensate the parents. Having regard to the environment from which these children were brought, their parents being reasonably well placed officials of Tata Iron and Steel Company, and on considering the submission of Mr. Nariman, we would direct that the compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other words, it should be Rs. 1.5 lakh, to which the conventional figure of Rs. 50,000 should be added and thus the total amount in each case would be Rs. 2.00 lakh. So far as the children between the age group of 10 to 15 years, they are all students of Class VI to Class X and are children of employees of TISCO. TISCO itself has a tradition that every employee can get one of his children employed in the Company. Having regard to these facts, in their case, the contribution of Rs. 12,000 per annum appears to us to be on the lower side and in our considered opinion, the contribution should be Rs. 24,000 and instead of 11 multiplier, the appropriate multiplier would be 15. Therefore, the compensation, so calculated on the aforesaid basis should be worked out to Rs. 3.60 lakh, to which an additional sum of Rs. 50,000 has to be added, thus making the total amount payable at Rs. 4.10 lakh for each of the claimants of the aforesaid deceased children." Even by that standard, the amount of compensation granted by the High Court appears to be adequate in absence of any evidence having brought on record as to the actual damages.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Having regard to these facts, in their case, the contribution of Rs. 12,000 per annum appears to us to be on the lower side and in our considered opinion, the contribution should be Rs. 24,000 and instead of 11 multiplier, the appropriate multiplier would be 15. Therefore, the compensation, so calculated on the aforesaid basis should be worked out to Rs. 3.60 lakh, to which an additional sum of Rs. 50,000 has to be added, thus making the total amount payable at Rs. 4.10 lakh for each of the claimants of the aforesaid deceasedby that standard, the amount of compensation granted by the High Court appears to be adequate in absence of any evidence having brought on record as to the actual damages.