KAMLESH SINGH YADAV Vs. SUKARAM PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Award impugned is the Award dated 19.5.2011 whereby a total compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,75,000 had been awarded in favour of the claimants of the child victim. This Award has been impugned; contention before this Court is that the notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum which had been taken into account was on a wrong premise; adhering to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1963 (MVA) which was notified in the year 1994 being more than 11/2 decades old, consideration of inflation and price rise not having been considered and by applying the notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum, the Tribunal has committed an error. Learned Counsel for the appellants to support this submission has placed reliance upon a judgment of Uttarakhan High Court reported in , Reema and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, 2011 ACJ 664.

(2.) Record shows that the victim in this case was a 9 years old child; he had died in a road accident which had occurred on 15.3.2008. The child was studying in the first class in Holy Angel School; he was the only child of his parents. Claim petition had been filed under Section 166 of the MVA. The Tribunal after oral and documentary evidence and relying upon the proposition laid down in R.K. Malik and Another v. V. Kiran Pal and Others, 2009 AIR(SC) 2506 had noted that in the case of child victim, Rs. 15,000 per annum has to be taken as the notional income upon which multiplier of 15 was applied; loss of income was thus calculated @ Rs. 2,25,000; this was under the head of 'pecuniary damages'; a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 had been awarded under the head of 'nonpecuniary damages' i.e. Rs. 75,000 for future prospects and another sum of Rs. 75,000 for pain and sufferings which had been suffered by the claimants of the victim; this was also in view of the ratio of the judgment in the case of R.K. Malik . There is no fault in this finding of the Tribunal; it in no manner suffers from any infirmity.

(3.) The judgment relied upon by learned Counsel for the appellants is totally misplaced; this was a case where deceased victim was 34 years of age and was even otherwise on the issue of the correct multiplier to be applied. This Court is dealing with the case of child victim. The judgment of R.K. Malik , has been consistently followed by the Benches of this Court and lastly in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Farzana in MAC Appeal No. 13/2007 decided on 14.7.2009. Appeal has no merit.