,
J.R. Midha, J",
1. The appellant has challenged the award dated 16th February, 2012, whereby compensation of Rs.60 lakh has been awarded to respondents No.1",
and 2.,
2. On 16th February, 2002 at about 10:00 A.M., William Stark Johnstone Mair with his wife, Catherine Anne Mair and daughter Catriona Elispeth",
Mair, aged about 10 years were travelling in Maruti Suzuki Esteem car bearing No.DL-1Z-1123 from Jaipur to Delhi. When the car reached near",
Pucca Pani Piyau, P.S. Shahpura on NH-8, Jaipur, the car was hit by Mahindra Jeep bearing No.RJ-14-P-9808 which resulted in the death of their",
minor daughter, Catriona and injuries to Catherine Mair. Catriona Mair was aged about 10 years at the time of the accident and was survived by her",
parents who filed an application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal.,
3. The deceased was a British national. Respondent No.1 is a surgeon whereas his wife is helping him as a secretary/book keeper. The Claims,
Tribunal computed the compensation by taking the GDP of British citizens for the year 2002 as 17,200 UK Pound Sterling per capita. The Claims",
Tribunal took 50% of the GDP of 17,200 UK Pound Sterling per annum as the notional income of the child which was converted to Indian rupees i.e.",
Rs.6,02,000/- (8600 x 70). The Claims Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the child and applied the multiplier of 10 to",
compute the loss of dependency as Rs.40,13,330/- by applying the principles laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Patricia Jean Mahajan",
(2002) 6 SCC 281. The Claims Tribunal deducted 4,000 UK Pound Sterling received by the claimants on account of compensation for the death of",
their daughter and the net loss of dependency was taken as Rs.37,33,330/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.20 lakh towards future prospects,",
Rs.70,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.1,60,216/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation was computed as Rs.59,63,330/-",
rounded as Rs.60 lakh. The computation of the compensation done by the Claims Tribunal is reproduced hereunder: -,
“QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION :,
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY,
62. This petition has been filed by the parents of the child Catriona, aged about 10 years, who had died in the accident in which the parents had also",
sustained injuries. It has been frequently remarked that while a person may be compensated for the pecuniary loss that may have been suffered on,
account of injuries sustained in an accident but the crucial trauma arises for determining the compensation to be paid for loss of expectation of life as,
was observed in the case of “R.K. Malik & Anr. (Supra)â€. An injury inflicted by the deprivation of a life of a child is extremely difficult to,
quantify. In view of the uncertainties and contingencies of human life what would be an adequate determination is difficult to quantify. The Court,",
therefore, determines the compensation in terms of “standard compensation†and “conventional amount/sum†to get over the difficulty that",
arises in quantify a figure as the same ensures consistency and uniformity in awarding compensation.,
63. For calculating the pecuniary loss or loss of dependency, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that it is a multiplier method which should be",
applied. This method is based upon the principle that the claimant must be paid a just compensation, which could yield sufficient interest to provide",
material benefits of the same standards as the deceased would have provided for the dependents, if the deceased had lived and earned. Uniform",
application of the multiplier method forms consistency and certainty and prevents different amounts being awarded in different cases.,
64. In “R.K. Malik’s case (supra)†it was noted that the calculating the yearly loss of dependency the starting point is the wages being earned,
by the deceased, less his personal and living expenses. Thereafter, effect is given to future prospects of the deceased, inflation and general price rise",
that erodes value and the purchasing power of money. To the multiplicand so calculated, multiplier is to be applied. The Second Schedule which is",
applicable to the petitions filed u/s 163-A Motor Vehicle Act is generally considered as a guide for calculating compensations.,
65. The Second Schedule in case of children less than 15 years has prescribed that the notional income of such children may be taken as Rs.15,000/-",
per annum, from which 1/3rd may be deducted towards their personal expenses. The difficulty which arises in the present case is that the child",
Catriona was a British national. It cannot be over looked that there is much disparity in the economic conditions and affluence of two countries i.e. the,
place to which the victim belongs i.e. U.K. and the place where the compensation is to be paid i.e. India. In such cases it was observed in the case of,
“Patrica Jean Mahajan (supra)†that the golden balance must be stuck somewhere to arrive at a reasonable and fair amount.,
66. The question which, thus, arises is what is the notional income which should be taken of the child Catriona, a British national. The GDP of British",
citizens in the year 2002 was Sterling pound 17,200 per capita. This was the income per capita for an United Kingdom citizen and the same can be",
taken to be half in case of a child. The notional income of the child can, thus, be taken as Sterling pound 8,600 per annum or Sterling pound 8,600 x",
Rs.70 = Rs.6,02,000/- per annum (as per prevailing conversion rate). From the said amount 1/3rd is liable to be deducted towards the personal",
expenses of the child, which comes to Rs.6,02,000 â€" Rs.2,00,667 = Rs.4,01,333/- per annum.",
67. The multiplier has to be now determined keeping in mind the age of the child as well as the parents.,
68. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. As per the record the father William Stark Johnstone Mair was around 57 years old at the time of,
accident, while the mother Catherine was about 51 years at the time of the accident.",
69. In the case of “Patrica Jean Mahajan (supra)†similar situation had arisen in regard to the death of foreign national in India. It was observed,
that while prescribing the multiplier, the legislature had maximum income of Rs.40,000/- in mind but in cases where gap of income is so wide, in that",
case it was held that some reduction in the multiplier would be permissible. Therefore, the multiplier of 10 instead of 15 was applied.",
70. Applying the similar principle in the present case and having regard to the age of the claimants, a multiplier of 10 would be reasonable to provide a",
fair compensation. The net compensation payable on account of loss of dependency, thus, come to Rs.4,01,333 x 10 = Rs.40,13,330/-.",
41. It is also relevant to mention her that PW1 William Stark Johnstone Mair, father of the deceased has admitted that they had received Sterling",
pound 4,000 as death compensation for the child. As already discussed any compensation received on account of compensation for death in an",
accident is liable to be deducted. The sum of (Sterling pound 4,000 x Rs.70) Rs.2,80,000/- is, therefore, liable to be deducted from the calculated",
amount and the loss of dependency, thus comes to Rs.40,13,330- 2,80,000 = Rs.37,33,330/- .",
FUNERAL EXPENSES,
72. The petitioner PW1 William Stark Johnstone Mair has further deposed hat they had incurred expenses on the funeral and on installing the,
memorial stone for the child, the bills of which are collectively Ex.PW1/E have been placed on record. As per these bills a sum of Sterling pound 1475",
1. Compensation on account of loss of dependency,": Rs.37,33,330/-
2. Compensation on account of funeral expenses,": Rs. 1,60,000/-
3. Compensation on account of future prospects,": Rs.20,00,000/-
4. Compensation on account of loss of love & affection,": Rs. 70,000/-
Total,": Rs.59,63,330/-
9. The appellant is directed to deposit the balance award amount along with upto date interest with the Registrar General of this Court within six,
weeks from today. The computation of interest be placed on record on affidavit within one week of the deposit. Upon deposit of the balance amount,",
the Registrar General shall transfer the same to the aforesaid savings bank account of respondent No.2.,
10. List for reporting compliance on 16th March, 2018.",
11. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties under signatures of the Court Master.,
