PREM KUMARI Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the parents of the deceased child are seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) THE parents having sought for compensation on the death of a minor child who was aged 2-? years at the time of accident, the tribunal has arrivede at Rs. 63,000/- as the just compensation. This is on the basis of the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2002 KAR 5149 wherein it was laid down that the multiplier method has to be adopted even in the case of death of a minor instead of taking into account the structured formula of global compensation prescribed under the schedule and has proceeded to assess the compensation payable. It is this, which is under question in this appeal.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellant would contend that in so far as the death of a child is concerned, going by the trend of judgments resting with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of NEW india ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SATENER, wherein it was held that in cases of children of tender age, in view of uncertainties that a bound, 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 an 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 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 and proceeded to adapt the reasoning in the case of STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER vs V. JASBIR KAUR AND OTHERS, wherein it is held that it has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which is turn appears to it to be "just and reasonable". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limb or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; nor a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The court and the Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantity the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathamatical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attendant, peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation, which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so, it cannot be just. The court has also observed that there are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totatily of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendour 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 a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, the relevant factor would be the age of the parents.