R LOGASAMY Vs. K SOUNDARARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs. 62,000/- for the death of the child Vigneswaran, aged 9 years, in a road traffic accident on 19.10.1999, father of the deceased filed this Appeal.

(2.) BRIEF facts, which are relevant for disposal of this Appeal are as follows: (i) On 19.10.1999-5.30 p.m., when the deceased minor Vignaswaran was standing in front of his house, at that time, a Tempo Van bearing Regn.No. TN-33/B-7083 driven by its driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the minor Vigneswaran, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries in backside hip, stomach, head and all over his body. After the accident, the deceased minor Vigneswaran had taken treatment in Arun Fracture Clinic, where he succumbed to injuries on 20.10.1999. A Criminal Case was also registered against the van driver in Cr. No. 1077 of 1999 under Section 304(A) I.P.C. Alleging that the death of the minor child was due to rash and negligent driving of the van driver, claimants filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. (ii) Opposing the Claim, Insurance Co. has filed counter stating that the deceased minor child was playing with some other children and they were running hither and thither and the deceased came across the road without minding the on coming vehicle and the driver of the bus blowed horn and the deceased fell down and as such, he violently dashed against the vehicle. Hence, there was no fault on the part of the owner of the van, Insurance Co. is not liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance Co. has also disputed the age of the deceased and loss of dependency of the claimants. (iii) After the filing of the Claim Petition, First Claimant (Mother of the deceased) also died. Second Claimant examined himself as P.W.1. Exhibits P-1 to P-11 were marked. No evidence was adduced on the side of Insurance Co. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and referring to admission of guilt by the driver of the van, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the van driver and held that the insured and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, observing that the minor child was not earning any income, Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 50,000/- under "No Fault Liability" in terms of Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act. For loss of Love and Affection, Rs. 10,000/- was awarded and for Funeral Expenses, Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- and awarded total compensation of Rs. 62,000/. (iv) The learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant N. Manokaran has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded "just compensation" for loss of dependency and the quantum of compensation of Rs. 62,000/- awarded by Tribunal is abysmally low and the same is to be enhanced. It was further submitted that at the time of death the Claimant was aged 9 years and was a bright student and the same was not kept in view by the Tribunal.

(3.) WHILE quantifying and arriving at a figure for "loss of expectation of life, we have to keep in mind that this figure is not to be calculated for the prospective loss or future pecuniary benefits that has been awarded under another head- pecuniary loss. Compensation payable under this head is for loss of life and not loss of future pecuniary prospects. The measure of lose is the loss of prospective happiness. Under this head compensation is paid for termination of life, which results in constant pain and suffering. This pain and suffering does not depend upon the financial position of the victim or the Claimant but rather on the capacity and the ability of the deceased to provide happiness to the Claimant. It is compensation paid for loss of prospective happiness which the Claimant/Victim would have enjoyed had the child not been snatched away at the tender age. It is payment for loss of company and companionship. The compensation payable under this head should normally be uniform and consistent and not upon the financial status of the dependants or the deceased. Non-pecuniary loss by its very nature cannot be equated with economic wealth of the party.