9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled to interest but would not withdraw the principal amount during the lock-in period of six years without the permission of the Tribunal. HELD THAT:- No amount of compensation can restore the lost limb or the experience of pain and suffering due to loss of life. Loss of a child, life or a limb can never be eliminated or ameliorated completely. To put it simply-pecuniary damages cannot replace a human life or limb lost. Therefore, in addition to the pecuniary losses, the law recognises that payment should also be made for non pecuniary losses on account of, loss of happiness, pain, suffering and expectancy of life etc. The Act provides for payment of just compensation vide Section 166 and 168 . It is left to the courts to decide what would be just compensation in facts of a case. Under the Second Schedule of the Act in case of a non earning person, his income is notionally estimated at ₹ 15,000/- per annum. The Second Schedule is applicable to claim petitions filed u/s 163A. The Second Schedule provides for the multiplier to be applied in cases where the age of the victim was less than 15 years and between 15 years but not exceeding 20 years. Even when compensat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he term conventional compensation used in the said case has been used for non pecuniary compensation payable on account of pain and suffering as a result of death. The Court in the said case referred to ₹ 50, 000/- as conventional figure. The reason was loss of expectancy of life and pain and suffering on that account which was common and uniform to all regardless of the status. Unless there is a specific case departing from the conventional formula, non- pecuniary compensation should not be fixed on basis of economic wealth and background. In M.S. Grewal anr. v/s Deep Chand Sood ors. [ 2001 (8) TMI 1450 - SUPREME COURT] , compensation of ₹ 5 lakhs was awarded to the claimants and the same was held to be justified. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, however, pointed out that in the said case the Supreme Court had noticed that the students belonged to an affluent school as was apparent from the fee structure and therefore the compensation of ₹ 5 lakhs as awarded by the HC was not found to be excessive. It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court in the said case noticed that the students belonged to an upper middle class background but the basis and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration. We have noticed that the HC in present case has enhanced the compensation in this category by ₹ 75, 000/- in all connected appeals. We do not find any infirmity in that regard. Interest - Tribunal had directed for payment of interest for only four years at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the award and in case of payment was not made within 30 days then further interest at the rate of 6% from the date of award till payment. In appeal, HC awarded 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment. We find the interest awarded by the HC as just and proper, so the same need not be disturbed. - S.B. Sinha and Mukundakam Sharma, JJ. For Appellant: Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv., T. Harish Kumar, Yudhister Singh, Ashok Mathur (NP) and Rohit Minocha, Advs For Respondents: Pankaj Bala Verma, Adv. for Kiran Suri, Adv., P.R. Sikka, Dhiraj, Reeta Dewan Puri, Mohd. Wasi, Advs. for P.N. Puri, Adv., Ravi Kumar Tomar, Adv. for Jitendra Kumar, Adv. and Vipin Gogia, Adv. for Jaspreet Gogia, Adv. JUDGMENT Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. Leave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded a sum of ₹ 1, 55,000/- to the dependents of children between age group of 10 to 15 years and ₹ 1, 65,000/- between 15 to 18 years. Three of the children namely Kailash Rathi, Neena Jain and Jatish Sharma were less than 10 years. In the case of Kailash Rathi, compensation of ₹ 1, 05,000/- was awarded and in the cases of Neena Jain and Jatish Sharma, compensation of ₹ 1, 30,000/- and ₹ 1, 31,000/- respectively was awarded. Additional ₹ 1000/- was awarded in the case of Jatish Sharma, as in some other cases, for loss of books. The figures mentioned above include ₹ 5,000/- each towards funeral and last rites. It awarded interest @ 6% for four years. As per the Second Schedule of the Act, the balance amount was awarded for loss of dependency that was calculated on notional income of ₹ 15,000/- per annum. ₹ 5,000/- was deducted towards personal living expenses. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 for children below 15 years and multiplier of 16 for children between 16 and 18 years respectively. 7. Against the said order of the Tribunal, appeals were filed before the High Court by the appellants who were heard together by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrong. Compensation is therefore required to be paid for prospective pecuniary loss i.e. future loss of income/dependency suffered on account of the wrongful act. 12. However, no amount of compensation can restore the lost limb or the experience of pain and suffering due to loss of life. Loss of a child, life or a limb can never be eliminated or ameliorated completely. To put it simply-pecuniary damages cannot replace a human life or limb lost. Therefore, in addition to the pecuniary losses, the law recognises that payment should also be made for non pecuniary losses on account of, loss of happiness, pain, suffering and expectancy of life etc. The Act provides for payment of just compensation vide Section 166 and 168. It is left to the courts to decide what would be just compensation in facts of a case. 13. For calculating pecuniary loss or loss of dependency, this Court has repeatedly held that it is the multiplier method which should be applied. The said method is based upon the principle that the claimant must be paid a capital sum, which would yield sufficient interest to provide material benefits of the same standard and duration as the deceased would have provided f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... niary compensation for loss of future earnings and loss of dependency of the parents, grand parents etc. in the case of non-working student? Under the Second Schedule of the Act in case of a non earning person, his income is notionally estimated at ₹ 15,000/- per annum. The Second Schedule is applicable to claim petitions filed under Section 163A of the Act. The Second Schedule provides for the multiplier to be applied in cases where the age of the victim was less than 15 years and between 15 years but not exceeding 20 years. Even when compensation is payable under Section 166 read with 168 of the Act, deviation from the structured formula as provided in the Second Schedule is not ordinarily permissible, except in exceptional cases. [see Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India [2003]1SCR1229 ; United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan [2002]3SCR1176 and UP State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra (1996)4SCC362 ]. 17. Reverting back to the factual position of the present case, the date of accident is 18.11.1997. Prior to this, the Second Schedule of the Act was already introduced w. e. f. 14.11.1994. Thus, the notiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award. The fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassessment of these awards and to periodic reassessments of damages at certain key points in the pattern where the disability is readily identifiable and not subject to large variations in individual cases. 21. In the case of Ward v. James (1965) I All E R 563, it was observed: Although you cannot give a man so gravely injured much for his `lost years', you can, however, compensate him for his loss during his shortened, span, that is, during his expected `years of survival'. You can compensate him for his loss of earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance. But how can you compensate him for being rendered a helpless invalid? He may, owing to brain injury, be rendered unconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing to a back injury, be unable to rise from his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. Yet Judges and juries have to do the best they can and give him what they think is fair. No wonder they find it well nigh insoluble. They are being asked to calcul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact sum of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident.... But nevertheless the law recognises that as a topic upon which damages may be given. 24. It is extremely difficult to quantify the non pecuniary compensation as it is to a great extent based upon the sentiments and emotions. But, the same could not be a ground for non-payment of any amount whatsoever by stating that it is difficult to quantify and pinpoint the exact amount payable with mathematical accuracy. Human life cannot be measured only in terms of loss of earning or monetary losses alone. There are emotional attachments involved and loss of a child can have a devastating effect on the family which can be easily visualized and understood. Perhaps, the only mechanism known to law in this kind of situation is to compensate a person who has suffered non-pecuniary loss or damage as a consequence of the wrong done to him by way of damages/monetary compensation. Undoubtedly, when a victim of a wrong suffers injuries he is entitled to compens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of pain and suffering as a result of death. The Court in the said case referred to ₹ 50, 000/- as conventional figure. The reason was loss of expectancy of life and pain and suffering on that account which was common and uniform to all regardless of the status. Unless there is a specific case departing from the conventional formula, non- pecuniary compensation should not be fixed on basis of economic wealth and background. 28. In Lata Wadhawa case (supra), wherein the accident took place on 03.03.1989, the multiplier method was referred to and adopted with approval. In cases of children between 5 to 10 years of age, compensation of ₹ 1.50 lakhs was awarded towards pecuniary compensation and in addition a sum of ₹ 50, 000/- was awarded towards `conventional compensation . In the case of children between 10 to 18 years compensation of ₹ 4.10 lakhs was awarded including conventional compensation . While doing so the Supreme Court held that contribution of each child towards family should be taken as ₹ 24, 000/- per annum instead of ₹ 12, 000/- per annum as recommended by Justice Y. V.Chandrachud Committee. This was in view of the fact that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be addressed by the courts below. While considering such claims, child's performance in school, the reputation of the school etc. might be taken into consideration. In the present case, records shows that the children were good in studies and studying in a reasonably good school. Naturally, their future prospect would be presumed to be good and bright. Since they were children, there is no yardstick to measure the loss of future prospects of these children. But as already noted, they were performing well in studies, natural consequence supposed to be a bright future. In the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) and M. S. Grewal (supra), the Supreme Court recognised such future prospect as basis and factor to be considered. Therefore, denying compensation towards future prospects seems to be unjustified. Keeping this in background, facts and circumstances of the present case, and following the decision in Lata Wadhwa (supra) and M. S. Grewal (supra), we deem it appropriate to grant compensation of ₹ 75,000/- (which is roughly half of the amount given on account of pecuniary damages) as compensation for the future prospects of the children, to be paid to each claimant within one mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice here that as far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the Tribunal does not award any compensation under the head of non-pecuniary damages. However, in appeal the High Court has elaborately discussed this aspect of the matter and has awarded non-pecuniary damages of ₹ 75,000. Needless to say, pecuniary damages seeks to compensate those losses which can be translated into money terms like loss of earnings, actual and prospective earning and other out of pocket expenses. In contrast, non-pecuniary damages include such immeasurable elements as pain and suffering and loss of amenity and enjoyment of life. In this context, it becomes duty of the court to award just compensation for non-pecuniary loss. As already noted it is difficult to quantify the non-pecuniary compensation, nevertheless, the endeavour of the Court must be to provide a just, fair and reasonable amount as compensation keeping in view all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration. We have noticed that the High Court in present case has enhanced the compensation in this category by ₹ 75, 000/- in all connected appeals. We do not find any infirmity in that regard. 35. With respect to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
