Financial Year,CII
Before 1/4/1981,100
1981-82,100
1982-1983,109
xxx,xxx
1997-98,331
1998-99,351
1999-2000,389
2000-01,406
2001-02,426
2002-03,447
2003-04,463
2004-05,480
2005-06,497
2006-07,519
2007-08,551
2008-09,582
2009-10,632
2010-11,711
2011-12,785
2012-13,852
2013-14,939
2014-15,1024
2015-16,1081
CONCLUSIONS,
67. In the considered view of this Court, the cases for compensation on account of death of children in motor vehicular accident cases",
ought to be dealt with by considering the claim towards pecuniary damages (towards loss to estate), in accordance with the age-group wise",
categories as in R.K. Malik (supra); the first category being of children less than 10 years' in age, the second category being of children",
more than 10 years' and up to 15 years' in age, and the third category of children more than 15 years' but not having attained the age of",
majority (18 years). The children in the third category would ordinarily be of such age group as is generally receiving formal school,
education or those that are (being) imparted special training so as to be equipped with requisite skills to be gainfully employed in a variety,
of trades. They are after all nearing adulthood and thus, on the threshold of becoming self-reliant. In such cases, the prospects of their",
employability and earnings in future or present, based on evidence adduced about their academic track record or training in special talents",
or skills, would need to be borne in mind. As in Lata Wadhwa (supra), the claim for pecuniary damages arising out of death of children of",
this age group cannot be at par with the lower age groups falling in the first and second category. Therefore, the pecuniary loss to estate",
due to their death would deserve to be worked out by applying a higher multiplier on the notional income (of non-earning persons) unless,",
of course, case is properly made out for higher considerations. Noticeably, in Sarla Verma (supra) the Supreme Court specified the",
multiplier of 18 for cases where the deceased was in the age-group of 15 years' to 20 years' old. For the first and second category,",
however, the multiplier of 10 and 15 respectively, as used in R.K. Malik (supra), would hold good.",
68. Since in the claims arising out of death of children, generally speaking, (non-earning hands), the income is to be notionally assumed on",
the basis of the second schedule to the MV Act, the general practice of deduction of one-half (50%) towards personal & living expenses, as",
applied in case of bachelors above the age of 18 years would be unfair. Pertinently, the notional income specified for non-earning persons",
in the second schedule is very low as compared to the rates of minimum wages. Therefore, the deduction of one-third (1/3rd) on this",
account, as provided by the first note below the second schedule would only be appropriate.",
69. The award of compensation must necessarily take into account non-pecuniary damages. In R.K. Malik (supra), Rs. 75,000/- awarded by",
this Court as the “conventional compensation†was enhanced by the Supreme Court by further similar amount (Rs. 75,000/-) as the",
“compensation for future prospectsâ€. For the reasons set out earlier, in the context of pecuniary loss to estate, the composite sum of",
non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 1,50,000/- [as awarded in R.K. Malik (supra)] would deservedly be added, but with suitable correction so as",
to ensure that the deficiency in the real value of money is made good. As noted (in para 46) earlier, the Supreme Court justified the addition",
of Rs. 75,000/- towards compensation for “future prospects†by noting that the said amount was “roughly half of the amount given",
on account of pecuniary damagesâ€. Since the court had also upheld the award of similar sum (Rs. 75,000/-) by this court as",
“conventional compensationâ€, both amounts of non-pecuniary damages, put together, account for roughly an amount equivalent to the",
sum computed as pecuniary loss to estate. Thus, this court is of the view that a composite sum equal to the amount computed as pecuniary",
loss to estate may be added as non-pecuniary damages (inclusive of conventional compensation and for future prospects), in such cases as",
at hand to arrive at the appropriate figure of ‘just compensation’.,
70. It has been noticed by this Court that the tribunals have been assessing the compensation and awarding it to the last rupee, at times even",
in the fraction of a rupee, not bothering to follow the practice of rounding off. Awards in at least two of the cases from which the appeals at",
hand arise provide ready illustration. This seems to be not correct. It must be added here that human misery cannot be calculated with such,
mathematical precision. Even otherwise for convenience of accounting, it is desirable that the amount of award is rounded off to the nearest",
(if not next) thousands of rupees.,
71. Subject to all other requisite conditions being fulfilled, for the foregoing reasons, in order to bring about consistency and uniformity in",
approach to the issue, it is held that claims for compensation on account of death of children shall be determined as follows:",
(i) Till such time as the law is amended by the legislature, or the Central Government notifies the amendment to the Second Schedule in",
exercise of the enabling power vested in it by Section 163-A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and except in cases wherein the prospects",
of employability and earnings (in future or present) of the deceased child are proved by cogent and irrefutable evidence, this having",
regard, inter alia, to the academic record or training in special talents or skills, for computing the pecuniary damages on account of the",
loss to estate, the notional income of non-earning persons (Rs.15000/- p.a.) as specified in the Second Schedule (brought in force from",
14.11.1994), shall be assumed to be the income of the deceased child, and taken into account after it is inflation-corrected with the help of",
Cost Inflation Index (CII) as notified by the Government of India from year to year under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by",
applying the formula indicated hereinafter.,
(ii) For inflation-correction, the financial year of 1997-1998 shall be treated as the “base year†and the value of the notional income",
relevant to the date of cause of action shall be computed in the following manner:-,
Rs. 15,000/- × A ÷331",
[wherein the figure of ‘Rs. 15,000/-’ represents the notional income specified in the second schedule requiring inflation-correction;",
‘A’ represents the CII for the financial year in which the cause of action arose (i.e. the accident/death occurred); and the figure of,
‘331’ represents the CII for the ‘base year’],
(iii). After arriving at an appropriate figure of the present equivalent value of the notional income (i.e. inflation- corrected amount), it shall",
be rounded off to a figure in next thousands of rupees.,
(iv). The amount of notional income thus calculated shall be reduced to two-third, the deduction to the extent of one-third being towards",
personal & living expenses of the deceased, the balance taken as the annual loss to estate (hereinafter also referred to as “the",
multiplicandâ€).,
(v). For assessment of the pecuniary damages on account of the death of children upto the age of 10 years, the loss to estate shall be",
calculated, capitalizing the multiplicand, by applying the multiplier of ten (10).",
(vi). For children of the age-group of more than 10 years upto 15 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of",
fifteen (15).,
(vii). For children of the age-group of more than 15 years but less than 18 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the",
multiplier of eighteen (18).,
(viii). After the pecuniary loss to estate has been worked out in the manner indicated above, an amount equivalent to the amount thus",
computed shall be added to it as the composite non-pecuniary damages taking care of not only the conventional heads but also towards,
future prospects as awarded in R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal (2009) 14 SCC 1.,
(ix). The final sum thus arrived at, appropriately rounded off, if so required to the nearest (if not next) thousands of rupees, shall be",
awarded as compensation for the death of the child.â€,
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that this Court while taking note of such situation has enhanced the compensation of the,
claimants in M.A. No.212/17 vide order dated 12.10.2019 enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,75,000/- along with simple interest @7.5%",
per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. As such, the compensation may be enhanced to Rs.3,75,000/- along with interest @7.5%.",
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company Mr. Alok Lal has opposed the prayer and has submitted that though the amount of compensation is less,
but that cannot be enhanced up to Rs.3.75 Lakhs. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon the judgment",
of R.K. Malik & Anr. vs. Kiran Pal & Ors.; (2009) 14 SCC 1and has placed reliance upon paragraphs-29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 38 and 39 which may be",
profitably quoted hereunder:,
“29. In Lata Wadhwa case [(2001) 8 SCC 197] wherein the accident took place on 3-3-1989, the multiplier method was referred to and",
adopted with approval. In cases of children between 5 to 10 years of age, compensation of Rs 1.50 lakhs was awarded towards pecuniary",
compensation and in addition a sum of Rs 50,000 was awarded towards “conventional compensationâ€. In the case of children between",
10 to 18 years compensation of Rs 4.10 lakhs was awarded including “conventional compensationâ€. While doing so the Supreme Court,
held that contribution of each child towards the family should be taken as Rs 24,000 per annum instead of Rs 12,000 per annum as",
recommended by Justice Y.V. Chandrachud Committee. This was in view of the fact that the company in question had an unwritten rule that,
every employee can get one of his children employed in the said company.,
30. In M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood [(2001) 8 SCC 151 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1426 w]herein 14 students of a public school got drowned in,
a river due to negligence of the teachers, on the question of quantum of compensation, this Court accepted that the multiplier method was",
normally to be adopted as a method for assigning value of future annual dependency. It was emphasised that the court must ensure that a,
just compensation was awarded.,
31. In M.S. Grewal case [(2001) 8 SCC 151 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1426] compensation of Rs 5 lakhs was awarded to the claimants and the same,
was held to be justified. Learned counsel for Respondent 3, however, pointed out that in the said case the Supreme Court had noticed that",
the students belonged to an affluent school as was apparent from the fee structure and therefore the compensation of Rs 5 lakhs as,
awarded by the High Court was not found to be excessive. It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court in the said case noticed that the,
students belonged to an upper middle class background but the basis and the principle on which the compensation was awarded in that,
case would equally apply to the present case.,
35. In the present case, records show that the children were good in studies and studying in a reasonably good school. Naturally, their",
future prospects would be presumed to be good and bright. Since they were children, there is no yardstick to measure the loss of future",
prospects of these children. But as already noted, they were performing well in studies, natural consequence supposed to be a bright future.",
36. In Lata Wadhwa [(2001) 8 SCC 197] and M.S. Grewal [(2001) 8 SCC 151 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1426] the Supreme Court recognised such,
future prospects as the basis and factor to be considered. Therefore, denying compensation towards future prospects seems to be",
unjustified. Keeping this in background, the facts and circumstances of the present case, and following the decision in Lata Wadhwa",
[(2001) 8 SCC 197] and M.S. Grewal [(2001) 8 SCC 151 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1426] , we deem it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs",
75,000 (which is roughly half of the amount given on account of pecuniary damages) as compensation for the future prospects of the",
children, to be paid to each claimant within one month of the date of this decision. We would like to clarify that this amount i.e. Rs 75,000 is",
over and above what has been awarded by the High Court.,
38. This Court has observed as follows in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur [(2003) 7 SCC 484 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1671] , SCC at p. 7, para",
487:,
“7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award,
determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense ‘damages’ which in turn appears to it to be ‘just and,
reasonable’. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the,
same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly,
indicate that the compensation must be ‘just’ and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a,
pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just.",
What would be ‘just’ compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value,
of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the,
particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing",
compensation has to be considered in the background of ‘just’ compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the,
expression ‘which appears to it to be just’ a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done",
by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression ‘just’ denotes equitability,",
fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just.â€",
39. So far as the pecuniary damage is concerned we are of the considered view, both the Tribunal as well as the High Court has awarded",
the compensation on the basis of the Second Schedule and relevant multiplier under the Act. However, we may notice here that as far as",
non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the Tribunal does not award any compensation under the head of non-pecuniary damages.",
However, in appeal the High Court has elaborately discussed this aspect of the matter and has awarded non-pecuniary damages of Rs",
75,000.â€",
Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) is distinguishable from the present case. In that case, the",
deceased was aged about 10 years boy who was helping his father in his work, as such, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has been granted by the Apex",
Court but in the present case, the deceased was aged about 5 years and there is no evidence on record to suggest that she was assisting his parents in",
earning some money, as such, facts of this case is distinguishable.",
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record, this Court is conscious of the fact that price index is",
changing everyday because of the cost inflation index. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken this view in the case of Chetan Malhotra Vs. Lala,
Ram 2016 SCC Online Del 2981 which has also been considered in the case of R.K. Malik (supra).,
It appears that deceased- Anamika Kumar died in a road accident on 09.02.2012 at 01.00 P.M. while she was crossing Simariya Bagra Pitch Road,
near Middle School, Belgadda along with her grand mother by Tata Haiwa bearing Engine No.B591803111163187085, Chasis",
No.MAT44812683J28400 driven by its driver rashly and negligently causing grievous injuries to the girl who thereafter died while going to the,
Hospital. Schedule 2 of the Motor Vehicle Act was amended on 14.11.1994 by incorporating section 163 of the Motor Vehicle Act which deals with,
victim above 15 years of age. Section 163-A sub-Section (3) reads as follows:,
“The Central Government may, keeping in view cost of living by notification in the official gazette, from time to time amend the 2nd",
Scheduleâ€.,
The High Court of Delhi has taken such situation in paragraph-71 of the judgment as referred above.,
Under the aforesaid circumstances, considering the cost inflation index of the year 2011-12 as 785 divided by the cost inflation index of base year",
1997-98 as 331, in view of the Central Government Notification and multiplying the same with Rs.15,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- x A ÷ 331 i.e. 15,000/- x",
785÷331) gross income comes to Rs.35,574/- which is rounded off to Rs.36,000/-. After deducting 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- and applying the multiplier of",
15, the pecuniary loss to estate is computed as (Rs.36,000 x 2/3 x 15 = Rs.3,60,000/-). Adding a similar account towards composite non-pecuniary",
damages, the total compensation work out to Rs.7,20,000/- though the same is reduced to Rs.3,75,000/- in view of the judgment of National Insurance",
Company Ltd. vs. Farzana; 2009 ACJ 2763.,
In any cause of action arising on or after 10.05.2000 the amount of compensation shall not be in any case be less than Rs.3,75,000/- as it has been",
awarded in the case of Farzana (Supra). Further in the case of Syed Mehaboob vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 625, Hon'ble Apex",
Court has held at para-13 that “The Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficent legislation intended to place the claimant in the same,
position that he was before the accident and to compensate him for his loss. Thus, it should be interpreted liberally so as to achieve the",
maximum benefit.â€,
Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the compensation cannot be a windfall gain or bonanza but on the other hand it",
should not be a pittance, as such in view of the above discussion, this Court directs the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- along with",
interest @7.5% from the date of institution of the case in the view of the judgment of Dharmpal and Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation,
[2008 (4) JCR 79 (SC)].,
The amount already paid, if any, by the Insurance Company shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount and the balance amount of the same shall",
carry interest from the date of institution of the claim case.,
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed with aforesaid modification.",
