AMAR SINGH Vs. ATMA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act') is directed against the award of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Delhi dated 19th October, 1973 granting a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the appellants against the owner, and driver of the vehicle. They were allowed two months time to deposit the amount and in default future interest @ 6 per annum was payable from the date of the award till realisation.

(2.) RAMESH son of Amar Singh aged about 6 years met with an accident on 18th July, 1966 at about 5.45 p.m. on the road connecting Railway Phatak and Shahdara Main Bazar, Delhi. He received injuries on head and chest etc. He was removed to hospital but he died. It has been alleged that the accident took place due to negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the driver of Motor Truck No. DIG-1023 while driving the same in due course of his employment with the knowledge, permission, express or implied of the owner of the vehicle, that truck was coming at a fast speed from Railway Phatak side and knocked down the deceased from the front portion. The claims tribunal held that Ramesh aged 6 years died as a result of injury sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, that Ramesh was not guilty of contributory negligence and the appellants who are the parents of the deceased were entitled to claims compensation. The tribunal however held that the insurer M/s. Vanguard Insurance Company was not liable on the ground that the claimants-appellants had not lead any evidence to establish the insurance of the said vehicle.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants submits that the claims of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation on account of the death of the minor son is a just amount of compensation. The deceased was of good health, he was admitted in a private school for education and his father was to give him higher education His father aged 43/44 at that time has been a contractor earning about Rs. 500/-600/- per month. learned Counsel submits that the sum of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the claims Tribunal was highly inadequate. He submits that normal expectancy of life of the deceased and the mental shock suffered by the parents on account of the loss of their child, are the two criteria for determination of the compensation. He submits that the deceased was six years of age when he met with an accident and in ordinary course he was expected to live for 70 years. The father of the deceased was a contractor and was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- per month and it would be reasonable to expect that if the deceased had survived he would have certainly gone to school and would have completed his education at the age of 21 years and thereafter he would have done some work and service. His father has been earning Rs. 500/-, 600/- and the deceased would have also earned that much. The deceased would have been much more than Rs. 15,000/- claimed by the appellants. Moreover the appellants suffered mental shock. This aspect of the case has not been dealt by the claims Tribunal. Considering the income of the father of the deceased at Rs. 500/- per month. I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation is not just but highly inadequate. I am therefore of the opinion that the claims Tribunal ought to have awarded the sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimsants as claimed by them. In Rashid Husain and Anr. v. Union of India, 11(1984) ACC 458 a child of five years met with an accident. His father was drawing Rs. 480/- per month as a clerk. He was awarded Rs. 15,000/- as claimed by him.