LAWS(DLH)-2011-8-393

SURENDER KUMAR Vs. VIKAS

Decided On August 29, 2011
SURENDER KUMAR Appellant
V/S
VIKAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has impugned the Award dated 29.4.2010 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 had been awarded qua the death of the child victim aged 12 years Master Veer Singh. The learned Counsel for the appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the deduction of 1/3rd had been affected by the Tribunal; his contention in view of the judgment of R.K. Malik & Ors. v. Kiran Pal & Ors., 2009 2 ACC 705 followed by a Bench of this court in Chiranji Lal & Ors. v. Mangat Ram & Ors., 2010 1 ACC 855; no deduction is permissible in the case of a child victim; the contention is that the notional income of Rs. 15,000 p.a. was correctly applied to which multiplier of 15 was added; no deductions were permissible hereafter; the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,25,000 towards the pecuniary loss.

(2.) Record shows that the deceased Master Veer Singh was aged 12 years; claim petition had been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the judgment of R.K. Malik , the notional income of the child victim as per the structured formula of Section 163A of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act applicable in such like cases was correctly taken at Rs. 15,000 p.a. to which correct multiplier of 15 was added. The Apex Court in the case of R.K. Malik , has made following observations:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the Second Schedule and the structured formula contained therein had been adhered to in the impugned order which calls for no interference. This submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent is forceful and is evident from the ratio laid down in R.K. Malik . The Apex Court has noted that the structured formula has to be strictly adhered to; this structured formula clearly states that 1/3rd has to be deducted as expenses. Expenses had been rightly considered keeping in view the fact that had the victim lived he would have incurred 1/3rd expenses on himself. The finding in the impugned Award on this count calls for no interference.