Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Aastha Chauhan, Adv v. SANTOSH ORS

Judgment

1. The present Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 impugning the judgment dated

29.08.2018 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”] passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT, Judge, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. By the Impugned Award, a compensation in the sum of Rs. 6.54 lakhs have been along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

3. None appears for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 today. The learned Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company submit that the issue in the present matter is limited and the matter has been pending for long. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal today.

4. It is the contention of the Appellant/Claimant that the awarded Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:13.10.2025 18:48:52 MAC.APP. 343/2019 Page 1 of 13 amounts have not been calculated in terms of the settled law in this behalf.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3, on the other hand, contends Impugned Award has not been challenged by Respondent/Insurance Company and the amounts awarded have already been disbursed to the Appellants.

5. Briefly the facts are that on 04.07.2015, the deceased Baby Busra was playing near her house when a water tanker came, being driven at a high speed, and hit the girl, who fell down and died thereafter due to injuries sustained in the accident. The young girl was about 4 years old when she passed away. The Claim Petition was filed by the parents of the deceased seeking an award of Rs. 50 lakhs in their favour. The matter was contested by the Insurance Company as well as the driver and owner of the vehicle. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:-

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 12.07.2016 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court: ISSUES :

1. Whether Busra sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 04.07.2015 due to use and involvement of vehicle (water tanker) no. DL1 LG 2813 by R-1 ? ...OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP 3. Relief.

6. The learned Trial Court after examining the parties on the issues of quantum gave a finding in terms of the judgment of “Chetan Malhotra Vs. Lala Ram” (MAC APP. No. 554/2010)", that the computation on the multiplier of 10 was carried to award compensation carried and the notional Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:13.10.2025 18:48:52 MAC.APP. 343/2019 Page 2 of 13 income after inflation would be Rs. 15,000/- per annum and on this basis, awarded Rs. 3,26,666/- as the loss of estate. The relevant extract of the Impugned Award extract if the Impugned Award is below: “13. In the present case, the death of child namely - Baby Busra has occurred in the accident on 04.7.2015. Therefore, the CII for the financial year 2015-2016 (i.e 1081) would apply. Further, as the deceased child was about four years and two months old at the time of accident. Thus the computation is to be made on the multiplier of ’10’. In view of the above, the notional income after inflation comes to as under: Rs. 15,000/- x 1081/331= Rs.48,987 /-, rounded of to Rs. 49,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, the pecuniary loss to the estate is calculated as: Rs. 49,000 x 2/3 x 10= Rs. 3,26,666/-. Adding similar amount towards composite non pecuniary damages, the total compensation in this case comes to as under: Rs. 3,26,666 x 2= Rs. 6,53,332/- rounded off to Rs. 6,54,000/-. In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that an interim award for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been passed in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 05.2.2016 of the Ld. Predecessor of this court. It is being submitted on behalf of the petitioners that above-said amount of interim award was payable by respondent no.1 and respondent no.2, however, the said amount has not yet been paid to the petitioners by respondent nos.1&2. In these circumstances, since the amount of interim award has not yet been received by the petitioners, the said amount of interim award i.e Rs.50,000/- is not deductable [sic deductible] from the compensation being awarded to the petitioners in the present case. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 6,54,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs, Fifty Four Thousand Only) is awarded as compensation to petitioners’(parents/LRs of deceased Baby Busra) in the present case.” [Emphasis Supplied]

6.1 In addition, it was held that similar amount towards non-pecuniary damages be also awarded, thus, an amount of Rs. 6,54,000/- was also Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:13.10.2025 18:48:52 MAC.APP. 343/2019 Page 3 of 13 awarded to the Appellant/Claimant by the Impugned Award.

7. As stated above, learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that he has only one ground of challenge in the present Appeal. He submits that the law as is applicable on compensation to be awarded to minor children is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in catena of judgments including Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors.1, Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr2 and in a recent judgment in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr.3 has held that the compensation be calculated on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled worker.

8. In addition, it is contended that the award on loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate should be in terms of the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi4. The Appellant has also set out this calculation in a tabular chart, which is reproduced below:-

2. 3. 4. S.No. Heads Loss of Dependency Awarded 3,26,666/- Loss of Consortium Funeral Expenses Loss of Estate TOTAL COMPENSATION INTEREST AWARDED 3,26,666/- NIL NIL 6,54,000/- 9% Claim in Appeal 16,62,897/- Skilled @ 10,998/- + 40% inc. X 18 X 12 X ‰ 88,000/- 16,500/- 16,500/- 17,83,897/- 9%

9. The Appellant also contends that although the Impugned Award was passed prior to the judgment in Kajal case in view of the fact that the matter has not attained finality, the law as is applicable today should be applied.