GULZAR MOHAMMAD Vs. BIKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of claimants is for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by award dated 4.2.1991, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Una. Against their claim of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakh) an amount of Rs. 37,000 was awarded besides interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the petition till the date of realisation for the death of their only son, Mohammad Hussain alias Raju aged 7 years in an accident of truck No. HPG 4281 owned by respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and insured with respondent No. 3, insurance company. The unfortunate accident had taken place on 14.7.1988 at village Dukki Do Sarka, Tehsil Amb, District Una, as a result of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, the driver of the truck in question, as held by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in the impugned award against which no appeal has been filed by either of the respondents,

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has come in the statement of claimant Gulzar Mohammad, who has appeared as PW 1, that the deceased was his only son besides three daughters, who were studying in 6th, 4th and 2nd class at the relevant time. He has further stated that his deceased son was aged 7 years and was studying in 2nd class at the time of accident. According to him, he was brilliant, intelligent and promising child. There is no rebuttal to this part of the evidence except that it is denied by Rajneesh Kumar alias Bikka, RW 1, in his cross-examination that deceased was school going. As per his statement, the deceased was 5/6 years old at the time of accident but in view of his ignorance, whether deceased was elder or younger to his sisters, his statement cannot be preferred to the statement of father of the deceased, Gulzar Mohammad, PW 1. Considering this evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has assessed the compensation at Rs. 37,000 which has been assailed by the claimants in the present appeal being on the lower side. No doubt, the question of determination of compensation for the death of young children is a difficult task yet it is to be determined by assessing the present value of the future contributions which the deceased child would have made to his parents for which the relevant factors would be the child's general level of intelligence or health, the family background, the father's or family profession, if any, the capacity of the parents to educate the child, etc. After arriving at the annual contribution to the family, the multiplier that has to be applied is not the one appropriate to the age of the child at its death but to the ages of the parents. In the case of the children above 5 years and below 10 years, it will not be possible to ascertain a suitable multiplier because of the fairly higher mortality rates during that period and it will be appropriate to arrive at conventional amounts.

(3.) Learned counsel for the claimants has cited number of judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts wherein besides laying down the principles for determining the amount of compensation for the death of a child, the amounts of compensation have also been determined for the death of children of tender ages. In C.K. Subra- monia Iyer v. T. Kunhi Kuttan Nair, 1970 ACJ 110 (SC), after considering number of judgments of English courts the principles governing the assessment of damages under sections 1-A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act (Act XIII of 1855) were summed up as under in para 13: