The High Court · 2023
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A. No. 382 of 2022 Arvind Kumar Sinha, aged about 54 years, son of Late Rajmohan Prasad, resident of Juhitir, Talgharia More, R.A. Bihar, Main Road, Chirachas, P.O. & P.S. - Chas, District - Bokaro … … Versus Petitioner/Appellant 1. Steel Authority of India Ltd. through its Chairman having its registered office at Ispat Bhawan, Lodhir Road, New Delhi, P.O.+P.S.+District – New Delhi 2. Bokaro Steel Plant through its Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro Steel City, a Unit of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel City, P.O. + P.S. – B.S. Steel City, District – Bokaro, Jharkhand 3. Chief Executive Director (P&A), Bokaro Steel Limited having its office at Administrative Building, P.O. + P.S. + District – Bokaro, Jharkhand 4. General Manager (Town Administration), Bokaro Steel Limited, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. + P.S. + District – Bokaro, Jharkhand 5. Deputy Manager (S & CA), Bokaro Steel Limited, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. + P.S. +District – Bokaro, Jharkhand … --- … Respondents/Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellant For the Respondents --- : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate : Mr. Rajarshi Singh, Advocate --- Order No. 07 Dated: 6th September 2023 Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 16th June 2022 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6982 of 2019, whereby the learned writ Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The son of the appellant aged 14 years expired on account of drowning in the swimming pool maintained by the respondents. The appellant had filed writ petition against the respondents who refused to give compensation to the appellant. 3. The appellant had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: ―(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing of the letter dated 18.10.2018 2 L.P.A. No. 382 of 2022 order/orders, direction/directions
Legal Reasoning
issued under the seal and signature of Deputy Manager (S & C.A.) whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner with respect to payment of compensation has been rejected on the ground that the respondents are not negligent rather the petitioner‘s son was negligent and they are not taking their liability although it is the duty of the respondents to maintain the security in the swimming pool and also run the swimming pool as per the guidelines and from 1973 as per the information supplied by the respondents themselves the swimming pool was running without any certification and mandatory guidelines. (ii) Petitioner further prays for the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner on account of death of his son namely, Swastik Srivastava who has died due to negligence on the part of the respondent as the swimming pool which was opened by the respondent was not maintained properly and same was abandoned with water due to that the child has died in the aforesaid swimming pool due to drowning. (iii) To hold and declare that the swimming pool which was constructed by the respondents was not kept in the proper manner in accordance with the Bureau of Indian Standard of swimming pool for Public Code and Safety and due to that non maintenance of proper guidelines and no security guard or swimming instruction in the swimming pool the death of the petitioner‘s son has occurred. (iv) Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.‖ upon 4. The order of the learned writ Court is quoted as under: ―Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Tiwary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that though the writ petition was filed on 18.12.2019 and defect nos. 1 to 4 have been pointed out vide S.R. dated 18.12.2019, but the same have not been removed. Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Lawazima of Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 07.02.2020 and before the Lawazima of Registrar General I/c on 02.07.2021, but even after giving time, the defect nos. 1 (partly) and 4 have not been removed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner, Arvind Kumar Sinha, son of Rajmohan Prasad, resident of Juhitir, Talgharia More, R.A. Bihar, Main Road, Chirachas, P.O. + P.S. - Chas, District - Bokaro, has preferred this writ petition for quashing the letter dated 18.10.2018 issued under the seal and signature of Deputy Manager, (S&C.A.) (Annexure-6), whereby the respondent authorities have refused to grant compensation to the petitioner, whose son, aged about 14 years, has died on 28.03.2018 because of negligence on the part of respondent authorities. Learned counsel for the respondents / Bokaro Steel Limited, Mr. Saurav Swarup, A.C. to learned counsel, Mr. Shresth Gautam has submitted, that the reason has been assigned in the impugned order, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:- ―So far, till the ill-fated day of 28.03.2018, no aquatic-accidents/ occurrences have been noticed or brought the concerned Department even during the Annual Summer Coaching Camps attended by hundreds of children only because of it's strict vigil in Swimming activities at the ―Taran Taal‖ arena which happened to be under the observance of Sports & C.A. Deptt. Assisted by the knowledge of to 3 L.P.A. No. 382 of 2022 it's supporting staff. But on the contrary you have stated in your letter that the behaviour of the concerned personnels of Bokaro Steel Plant were not supportive in this regard, which can not be accepted. Unauthorised entrance, inside the Swimming Pool arena that too on a ―Closed Day‖ crossing the boundary wall is not right & can not be pleaded & justified in any forum or at any level.‖ Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the son of the petitioner is unauthorized entrant and thus on the closing day, such mis-happening was happened, if any, for which no relief can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the impugned letter (Annexure-6), it appears that no writ can be issued under such facts and circumstances, where son of the petitioner entered into the Swimming Pool unauthorizedly on closing day, for which the respondents cannot be held liable.
Decision
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.‖ 5. The records of this case indicate that it is not in dispute that on 28th March 2018 the son of the appellant aged about 14 years had entered into the club maintained by the respondent, namely, Russian club which was having a swimming pool and was found drowned in the swimming pool and died. It is further not in dispute that one U.D. Case No. 05 of 2018 was instituted on account of the incident and ultimately the incident was found to be correct. The post-mortem was also conducted and he was declared to have died on account of drowning. The appellant sought certain information from the respondents regarding the security arrangements in the club with particular reference to the swimming pool and was informed through Right to Information that the club as well as the swimming pool was being maintained by a department of the respondents and the respondents had made certain arrangements to have a care taker in the club. However, on the date of incident, the swimming pool was closed and at the time of incident there was no attendant or care taker available in the club. It has also come on record that the club was duly surrounded by a boundary wall but on account of one fallen tree a portion of the boundary wall had broken which could enable the children to enter into the premises having the swimming pool. It is further not in dispute that the son of the appellant had entered into the premises of the club through the broken boundary wall. 6. The appellant has furnished the details with regards to his deceased son as under: - 4 L.P.A. No. 382 of 2022 in Name:- Swastik Srivastava who died at the age of 14 years on 28th March 2018. He was a student of MGM Higher Secondary School, Bokaro. He was studying in class-VIII. He was actively the extra-curricular activity and also participating representing his school at several occasions in science exhibition. The present appellant is his father who is aged about 55 years. He is a teacher in MGM Higher Secondary School, Bokaro. His income is Rs. 70,000/- per month and net salary is Rs. 66,000/-. Mother of the deceased is Kanta Devi who is a home maker. Younger sister of the deceased is Srishti Sinha (currently studying B.A. LLB at Kumar Manglam University, Gurgaon). Arguments of the appellant 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after receiving the requisite information, the appellant had filed a representation dated 13th August 2018 before the Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant, Steel authority of India Limited claiming compensation for the loss of life of his son and in response to that the authorities refused impugned communication dated 18th October 2018 by stating that on the date of to give any compensation vide the incident the swimming pool was closed and it was the fault of the son of the appellant who entered into the pool through the boundary wall although he was not authorized to do so and therefore, there was no fault on the part of the respondents and consequently no compensation was payable. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the swimming pool was there in the club it was the duty of the authorities of the respondent to ensure that the swimming pool is well attended all the time and the possibility of children entering into the premises is completely rules out. The learned counsel has further submitted that when the boundary wall was broken then also it was the duty of the authorities of the respondent to ensure that the repair of the boundary wall is attended to immediately and having not done so it became open to the children to enter the boundary wall of the club and risk their life at the instance of the respondents. The learned counsel has submitted that the respondents have failed in their duty in keeping the swimming pool protected and secured from the anticipated danger of children entering through the broken boundary wall who might get drowned in the swimming pool. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case reported 5 L.P.A. No. 382 of 2022 in (1993) 2 SCC 746 [Nilabati Behera (SMT) @ Lalita Behera vs. State of Orissa & Others] para 34 to submit that the relief of monetary compensation on account of loss and damages suffered by the appellant can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India particularly when the foundational facts regarding the incident are not in dispute. 10. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204 [Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Others] to submit that for the purposes of quantifying the compensation this judgement could be relevant though passed in the context of motor vehicle accident claim. The learned counsel has submitted that the principles of assessing damages on account of tortious liability under the Motor Vehicles Act may also be applied in the present case as the claims in motor vehicle accidents and compensation arising therefrom are also primarily rooted in tortious liability. The learned counsel has submitted that the compensation which may be awarded in the present case will be primarily guided by the principles of tortious liability. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that tortious liability in the circumstances where a swimming pool is maintained by the club having a broken boundary wall exposing the swimming pool even to children has not been properly considered by the learned writ Court. The writ petition has been rejected merely on the ground that the fault was on the part of the son of the appellant while entering into the premises of the club as his entry into the premises of the club by itself was unauthorized. Arguments of the Respondents 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, does not dispute the factual background which has been narrated by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, he submits that the fault was primarily of the child who unauthorizedly entered into the premises which was the reason for denying the compensation to the appellant. The learned counsel has submitted that the Management had rightly rejected the claim for compensation. Findings of this Court 6 L.P.A. No. 382 of 2022 12. The claim of the appellant was rejected by the communication impugned in the writ proceedings by stating as follows: - ―Dear Sir, In connection to your above referred letters dated: 13-08- 2018 & 19-09-2018 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant & the untoward mishap which occurred at the Swimming Pool at Sector-4 on 28.03.2018, it has been observed that on that particular unfateful day, the Swimming Pool was closed as weekly off & as such the concerned staff of Sports & C.A. Deptt. of SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant were not on duty on 28.03.2018 and thus neither any lacunae nor any type of managing/monitoring the activities at the Swimming Pool took place on the part of the concerned Department of Sports & C.A. of SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant as alleged in your above subject letter dtd: 13.09.2018. As a matter of fact, immediately after getting information regarding taken & the mishap, urgent measures were accordingly Security Deptt. was called for rescue, who immediately summoned the Fire Deptt. & subsequently the Rescuemen/ Diver called by Fire Deptt. entered the Swimming Pool and a drowned body was recovered, which was sent to Hospital alongwith the personnels/staff of Security. Fire Deptts. & the family members of the victim for the needful. Despite all efforts unfortunately the life of the victim could not be saved. We further strongly oppose the allegations raised by you on SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant in para: 4 to 8 of your aforesaid letter dated: 13-08-2018 by misrepresenting the facts despite knowing that unauthorised entrance or unconventional trespassing into the premises of Swinging Pool is wrong & in no way could be camouflaged favourably with malafide & ridiculous statement which otherwise conveys the sheer malice on your part. So far, till the ill-fated day of 28.03.2018, no aquatic- accidents/occurrences have been noticed or brought to the knowledge of the concerned Department even during the Annual Summer Coaching Camps attended by hundreds of children only because of it's strict vigil in Swimming activities at the "Taran Taal" arena which happened to be under the observance of Sports & C.A. Deptt. assisted by it's supporting staff. But on the contrary, you have stated in your letter that the behaviour of the concerned personnels of Bokaro Steel Plant were not supportive in this regard, which cannot be accepted. Unauthorised entrance, inside the Swimming Pool arena that too on a "Closed Day" crossing the boundary wall is not right & cannot be pleaded & justified in any forum or at any level. In view of the above & with full sympathy to you and your berieved family, the issue of compensation does not arise from our side please. This is for your kind information please, Sir.‖ 13. The foundational factual background in connection with the incident leading to the death of 14 years old son of the appellant is not in dispute. 14. Admittedly, there was a broken boundary wall of the club premises on account of which the son of the appellant could enter into the premises and fell into the swimming pool and died out to 7 L.P.A. No. 382 of 2022 drowning. Admittedly, at the time of the incident, no care taker was available and the swimming pool was unattended and there was nobody in the club premises to attend to the incident. 15. In the judgement passed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2001) 8 SCC 151 [M.S. Grewal and another v. Deep Chand Sood and others], the Hon‘ble Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where the school had organized a picnic and the children had died due to drowning caused by negligent act of the teachers. In the said case, while explaining the meaning of term ‗negligence‘, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in paragraph 14 of the said judgement has held as under: - “14. Negligence in common parlance means and implies ―failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable prudent person‖. It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful disregard of the safety of others. In most instances, it is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence, by which the negligent party is unaware of the results which may follow from his act. Negligence is thus a breach of duty or lack of proper care in doing something, in short, it is want of attention and doing of something which a prudent and a reasonable man would not do (vide Black's Law Dictionary). Though sometimes the word ―inadvertence‖ stands and is used as a synonym to negligence, but in effect negligence represents a state of the mind which, however, is much serious in nature than mere inadvertence. There is thus existing a differentiation between the two expressions — form of negligence, is a milder whereas ―negligence‖ by itself means and implies a state of mind where there is no regard for duty or the supposed care and attention which one ought to bestow. Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (18th Edn.) sets out four several requirements of the tort of negligence and the same read as below: inadvertence ―(1) The existence in law of a duty of care situation i.e. one in which the law attaches liability to carelessness. There has to be recognition by law that the careless infliction of the kind of damage in suit on the class of person to which the claimant belongs by the class of person to which the defendant belongs is actionable. (2) Breach of the duty of care by the defendant i.e. that it failed to measure up to the standard set by law. (3) A causal connection between the defendant's careless conduct and the damage. (4) That the particular kind of damage to the particular claimant is not so unforeseeable as to be too remote.‖ 16. Further in the said judgement itself, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has observed that in such tortious liability, compensation can be quantified as adopted in motor accident claim cases and has ultimately granted compensation @ Rs. 5 lacs per child with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the judgement of the High Court till payment on reducing balance. The said amount of compensation was fixed as 8 L.P.A. No. 382 of 2022 back as in the year 2001. The children in the said case were studying in 4th, 5th and 6th class. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there was gross negligence on the part of the respondents in keeping the boundary wall of the club premises having a swimming pool in broken condition and further keeping the swimming pool unattended. This Court is of the considered view that even if the swimming pool was closed on the date of incident and the entry of the son of the appellant was unauthorized, the same does not absolve the respondents from their responsibility to keep the swimming pool out of reach of children. It was only on account of broken boundary wall and unattended swimming pool the son of the appellant could get access to the swimming pool and was drowned. This Court is of the considered view that once there is a swimming pool in one or the other premises like a club, the owner of the premises has much more responsibility and duty to fully secure the premises and in particular prevent access of children to the swimming pool. In such circumstances, the respondents have failed in their public duty to protect the fundamental right to life of the son of the appellant and has thereby committed a public wrong and are liable to compensate the appellant for loss on account of death of his son. 18. Accordingly, it is a fit case where power was required to be exercised by the learned writ Court to compensate the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the claim of the appellant could not have been denied on the ground of unauthorized entry of the son of the appellant in the club premises. 19. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the judgement passed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 (supra). Paragraph 34 of the said judgement is quoted as under: as law proceedings. The ―34. The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than relief of monetary the private compensation, in proceedings exemplary damages, under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when the court moulds the relief by 9 L.P.A. No. 382 of 2022 granting "compensation" in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the citizen. The payment of the fundamental rights of compensation in such cases is not to be understood, as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making 'monetary amends' under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of ‗exemplary damages' awarded against the wrong doer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction or/and persecute the offender under the penal law.‖ 20. From perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that in an appropriate case monetary compensation can be granted as exemplary damages in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be lost sight of that the respondent here is a Public Sector Organization who have a public duty to act in a manner so that citizens are not exposed to unnecessary risk. 21. This Court is of considered view that the learned writ Court has erred in law in dismissing the writ petition by holding that no writ can be issued under such facts and circumstances, where son of the appellant entered into the swimming pool unauthorizedly on closing day, for which the respondents cannot be held liable. This Court finds that the learned writ Court while rejecting the writ petition has only considered that the son of the appellant was an unauthorized entrant on a day when the swimming pool was closed but the learned writ Court has failed to take into consideration that there was contributory negligence on the part of the respondents who has not secured the premises as per the required standard particularly when it had a swimming pool in the premises which could risk the life of children. Consequently, the impugned order of the writ Court dismissing the writ petition is set-aside. 22. In view of the aforesaid finding, the letter dated 18.10.2018 impugned in the writ petition refusing compensation to the appellant is also set-aside. 23. In order to quantify the compensation, this Court finds it proper to refer to the judgement passed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court 10 L.P.A. No. 382 of 2022 reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204 (supra) wherein compensation in connection with death of children as fixed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court from time to time has been considered. This Court finds that the compensation has been fixed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court under three heads. Paragraphs 9 to 18 of the said judgement dealing with quantification of compensation are quoted as under: - ―9. Reverting to computation of compensation in the facts of this case, a child died in a road accident at the age of 12 years while playing in front of his house. He was studying in 5th class in Nehru Academy, Giridih Road, Jamtara, Dumri, however it is required to be seen how the computation of compensation may be made. As per the ocular statement given by his mother, it is clear that the deceased child was a brilliant student of Class 5 and if he had not met with the accident, he would have definitely become an officer in future. In the said factual matrix, the compensation is required to be determined. 10. In the judgement of R.K. Malik [R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal, (2009) 14 SCC 1 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 265 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1265] , 29 children going in a school bus died by drowning in Yamuna River while the offending vehicle fell down, breaking the railings of the bridge in a road accident, took place in November 1997. In the said case this Court held that the principle for determination of the compensation may be observed applying the IInd Schedule of the MV Act and the appropriate multiplier considering the age of parents. It has also been said that the claim with regard to the future prospects should have been addressed by the courts based on the performance and the reputation of the school. In the said case, the principles laid down by this Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar [Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197] and M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood [M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1426] have been followed and enhancement was made. 11. In Lata Wadhwa [Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197] , it was clarified that the compensation may be awarded dividing the children in the age groups of 5 to 10 and 10 to 15 years. It is held that such grant of compensation will not necessarily bar the parents to claim prospective loss and it will be valid. This Court also relied upon the principles as laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Railway Co. v. Jenkins [Taff Vale Railway Co. v. Jenkins, 1913 AC 1 (HL)] , wherein Lord Atkinson observed as thus : (Jenkins case [Taff Vale Railway Co. v. Jenkins, 1913 AC 1 (HL)] , AC p. 7) ―… all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact—there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first, that the deceased earned money in the past and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can, I 11 L.P.A. No. 382 of 2022 think, be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them.‖ 12. Thus relying upon the observation, it is said that in place of issuing any guidelines for determination of compensation in case of death of a child, it may be left open to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. In M.S. Grewal [M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1426] , 14 school students died due to drowning in a river. This Court noticing that the students were belonging to upper middle class background, however awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs 5,00,000. 13. Thereafter in Kishan Gopal [Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] , a child aged about 10 years died in a road accident took place on 19-7-1992, this Court made departure from the IInd Schedule of the MV Act and accepted the notional income of Rs 30,000 in place of Rs 15,000 applying the analogy that the value of rupee has come down drastically since 1994 when the notional income of Rs 15,000 was fixed in IInd Schedule of the MV Act. However accepting the notional income as Rs 30,000 and as per the age of the parents i.e. 36 years, the loss of dependency was calculated applying the multiplier of 15 at Rs 4,50,000 and a sum of Rs 50,000 was awarded under conventional heads awarding a total sum of compensation of Rs 5,00,000. in Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam 14. Recently Kishore Murmu [Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 : (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 365 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , wherein a child aged about 7 years died in a road accident took place on 6-9-2004, this Court taking notional income as Rs 25,000, applying the multiplier of 15, calculated the loss of in dependency as Rs 3,75,000 and adding Rs 55,000 conventional heads, awarded Rs 4,70,000. 15. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs 15,000 as specified in the IInd Schedule of the MV Act has been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd Schedule of the MV Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs 30,000 in Kishan Gopal [Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] and Rs 25,000 in Kurvan Ansari [Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 : (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 365 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively. 16. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgements, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down in Kishan Gopal [Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that the deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs 30,000 including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , the loss of dependency comes to Rs 4,50,000 and if we add Rs 50,000 in conventional heads, then 12 L.P.A. No. 382 of 2022 the total sum of compensation comes to Rs 5,00,000. As per the judgement of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs 1,50,000 has been awarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs 2,00,000 up to the value of the claim petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs 5,00,000 and on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs 2,00,000, the enhanced amount comes to Rs 3,00,000. restriction 17. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523] , it was observed that under the MV Act, there is no award so claimed. The compensation exceeding Tribunal/Court ought to award ―just‖ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount. the Tribunal/Court the amount cannot that this appeal 18. Accordingly, is allowed. The amount of compensation, as awarded by the High Court is enhanced by Rs 3,00,000, in addition. The total amount of compensation would be Rs 5,00,000. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation. The due amount be paid by Respondent 4 United India Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from today.‖ 24. In the recent judgement of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204 (supra), the child was 12 years of age and the date of motor vehicle accident was 29th July 2003. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had granted lump sum amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the High Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,00,000/-. The adequacy of the compensation was questioned before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court considered the various judgements and ultimately granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- and also directed that the enhanced amount of compensation would carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. If the amount of interest calculated approximately, the amount of compensation inclusive of interest would certainly come to more than Rs. 10,00,000/-. 25. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the family background, financial conditions and other future prospects of the deceased child of the appellant whose details have been furnished by the appellant and mentioned above including 13 L.P.A. No. 382 of 2022 the age of the deceased child on the date of death i.e. 28th March 2018 and the fact that more than 5 ½ years have elapsed from the date of death, this Court is of the considered view that a compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lacs) would be sufficient though loss of life can never be quantified in terms of compensation. 26. Having held as aforesaid, the respondent is directed to make the payment of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of damages suffered by the appellant due to loss of his son 14 years of age. The amount shall be paid within a period of one month and the same be directly remitted to the bank account of the appellant whose bank details are already available. 27. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. 28. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Binit/Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)