PRIYA VASANT KALGUTKARversusMURAD SHAIKH & ORS.

                     [2009] 11 S.C.R. 591


                PRIYA VASANT KALGUTKAR                              A
                               v.
                  MURAD SHAIKH & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal No. 4795 of 2009)
                        JULY 29, 2009
                                                                    B
         [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.,... s. 166 - Claim petition under
- Girl aged 9 years suffered 10% permanent disability -
Compensation of Rs. 72, 783 by tribunal - High Court                C
enhancing it to Rs. 1, 12, 0001- - On appeal, held: Where no
income is proved, notional income for payment of
compensation to those who had no income prior to accident,
sum of Rs. 15, 0001- p.a. is considered as multiplicand -
Multiplier of 15 is to be applied - On facts, girl was a child at   o
the time of the accident and had no income - No evidence
brought on record as to actual damages -· Hence,
compensation granted by High Court is adequate.

     The question which arose for consideration in this             E
appeal was whether the High Court was justified in
awarding compensation of Rs.1, 12,0001- to a young girl
aged 9 years who suffered permanent disability of 10%
in a motor vehicle accident. ·

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court                                F
     HELD: Appellant was· a child at the time of the
accident. She had no earning. What amount could be
awarded towards future loss of earning or prospective
lo.ss of earning could not have been determined on the G
basis of any legal principle. Compensation for the injuries
suffered by a person in a motor vehicle accident can be·
determined either on the basis of the actual damages
suffered or upon application of the structured formula.
                              591                                   H
    592        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2009] 11 S.C.R.


A Although for the purpose of invoking the provisions of
  Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a legal
  principle may be found in the Second Schedule thereof.
  The Second Schedule provides that where no income is
  proved, notional income for the purpose of payment of
B compensation to those who had no income prior to
  accident, a sum of Rs.15,000/- per annum would be
  considered as the multiplicand. The multiplier required to
  be applied would be 15. Under the head of disability in
  non-fatal accident, the amount of compensation can be
c determined only on that basis. Even by that standard, the
  amount of compensation granted by the High Court
  appears to be adequate in absence of any evidence
  having brought on record as to the actual damages.
  [Paras 7, 8 and 9] [549-F, G; 596-A; 598-F]
D         Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 197, relied
    on.

                          Case Law Reference:
          (2001) 8 sec 191         Relied on.           Para 9
E
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    4795 of 2009.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 6.1.2006 of the High
F Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 1386 of 2004.

        P.V. Viswantha Shetty, Sharan Thakur, Murth Naik, D.S.
    Thakur, Dr. Sushil Balwada for the Appellants.

          Dr. Meera Agarwal for the Respondents.
G
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          S.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

          2. Appellant is a young girl. She met with an accident on
H
          PRIYA VASANT KALGUTKAR v. MURAD SHAIKH & ORS. 593
                          [S.S. SINHA, J.]
 /
          or about 20.9.199.9 while she was aged only 9 years. In the said   A
          ai;;cident she suffered the following injuries, as stated in the
          application filed on her behalf before the Mot:x Accidents
          Claims Tribunal :

                1.    There is swelling deformity & fracture of middle 3rd
                                                                             B
                      of Lt. thigh (femur shaft).

                2.    Abrasion over left frontal region.
  \
                3.    Abrasion over Rt. ·Lateral aspect."

               3. She was treated by two doctors. According to one of
                                                                             c
          them, namely, Dr. Mukund, who examined himself as PW3, she
          suffered 10% to 15% of disability whereas according to the
          other doctor, Dr. Shivanand, she suffered 20% to 25% of
          physical disability in her left lower limb.
                                                                             D
               An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was claimed by her by way of
          compensatioo in the claim petition before the Motor Accidents
          Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
          1988 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity
          as 'the Act'). The Tribunal, however, having regard to the         E
          evidences brought on record, opining that permanent disability
          suffered by her would be 10%, a sum of Rs.40,000/- awarded
          on the said ground. The total amount of compensation
          determined was a sum of Rs.72,785/- details of which are as
  "   ~
          under:
                                                                             F
                   "Rs.18,000/- towards pain and sufferings and agony,
              Rs. 12,460 towards diet and attendant charges and
              Rs.323/- were awarded towards medical expenses."

              4. On an appeal preferred thereagainst, the High Court,        G
          without assigning any reason, enhanced the amount of
' If'-    compensation to Rs.1, 12,000/-, stating :

              "Petitioner could be awarded Rs.30,000/- for pain and
              agony, Rs.10, 0001- for medical and incidental expenses
                                                                             H
    594        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2009] 11 S.C.R.


A         relating to treatment, Rs.15,000/- for loss of amenities and   '-
          discomfort on account of disability, Rs.27,000/- (1500 X
          18) for loss of future earnings on account of disability and
          Rs.20,000/- for loss of marriage prospects on account of
          disability. In all, the petitioner is entitled to the
B         compensation of Rs.1, 12,000/- as against Rs.72,785/-
          awarded by the Tribunal. On the enhanced compensation,
          the interest payable shall be 6% p.a. from the date of
          petition till payment."                                          .
       5. Appellant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith
c is before us.

       6. Mr. P V.V. Shetty, learned senior counsel appearing on
  behalf of the appellant, would contend that the High Court
  committed a serious error in awarding only a sum of
D Rs.1, 12,000/- without taking into consideration her prospect of
  marriage. The amount of compensation on the basis of notional           )
  income should not have been determined, urging that even if
  she was to work as a labourer, she would have earned at
  Rs.4,000/- per month.
E
        7. Indisputably, she was a child at that time. She had no
  earning. What amount could be awarded towards future loss
  of earning or prospective loss of earning could not have been
  determined on the basis of any legal principle. Compensation
                                                                              ,;
  for the injuries suffered by a person in a motor vehicle accident      >
F
  can be determined either on the basis of the actual damages
  suffemd or upon application of the structured formula. Although
  for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 163A of
  the Act, a legal principle may be found in the Second Schedule
  thereof. The Second Schedule provides that where no income
G is proved, notional income for the purpose of payment of
  compensation to those who had no income prior to accident,             .... '
  a sum of Rs.1.5,000/- per annum would be considered as the
  multiplicand. The multiplier which was required to be applied
  would be 15. Paragraph 4 and 5 of the said Schedule reads
H
               PRIYA VASANT KALGUTKAR v. MURAD SHAIKH & ORS. 595
                               [S.B. SINHA, J.]

               as under:                                                           A
                   "4. General damages in case of injuries and disabilities-

                    (i)    Pain and sufferings :

     ,'                    (a) Grievous injuries     Rs.5,000.                     B

                           (b) Non-grievous injuries Rs.1,000
     ~              (ii)   Medical expenses-actual expenses Incurred
                           supported by billslvouchersBut not exceeding as
                           onetime Payment         Rs.15,000                       c
                   5. Disability in non-fatal accidents-

                   The following compensation shall be payable in case of
                   disability to the victim arising out of non-fatal accidents :
                                                                                   D
          ·1
     .            Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not
                  exceeding fifty-two weeks .
     '
                   PLUS either of the following :
                                                                                   E
                    (a)    In case of permanent total disablement the amount
                           payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual
                           loss of income by the Multiplier applicable to the
                           age on the date of determining the compensation,
          '~               or
                                                                                   F
                    (b)    In case of permanent partial disablement such
                           percentage of compensation which would have
                           been payable in the case of permanent total
                           disablement as specified under item (a) above.
                                                                                   G
                  Injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement/
          f1      permanent partial disablement and percentage of loss or
                  earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under
                  Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923."
                                                                                   H

•[
    596         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2009] 11 S.C.R.


A        8. Thus, under the head of disability in non-fatal accident,
    the amount of compensation can be determined only on that
    basis.

         9. We may, however, notice that in Lata Wadhwa v. State
    of Bihar ((2001) 8 SCC 197], this Court held :
B
           "11. So far as the award of compensation in case of
           children is concerned, Shri Justice Chandrachud has
           divided them into two groups, the first group between the
           age group of 5 to 10 years and the second group between
c          the age group of 10 to 15 years. In case of children
           between the age group of 5 to 10 years, a uniform sum of
           Rs.50,000 has been held to be payable by way of
           compensation, to which the conventional figure of
           Rs.25,000 has been added and as such to the heirs of the
D          14 children, a consolidated sum of Rs. 75,000 each, has
          been awarded. So far as the children in the age group of           I
           10 to 15 years, there are 10 such children who died on
          the fateful day and having found their contribution to the
          family at Rs .12,000 per annum, 11 multiplier has been
E         applied, particularly, depending upon the age of the father
          and then the conventional compensation of Rs.25,000 has
          been added to each case and consequently, the heirs of
          each of the deceased above 10 years of age, have been
          granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,57,000 each. In
          case of the death of an infant, there may have been no              ~   '
F
          actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the
          child's lifetime. But this will not necessarily bar the parents'
          claim and prospective loss will found a valid claim
          provided that the parents establish that they had a
          reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had
G
          lived. This principle was laid down. by the House of Lords
          in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. v. Jenkins and Lord           :t:-.
          Atkinson said thus:

                 " ... all that is necessary is that a reasonable
H
          PRIYA VASANT KALGUTKAR v. MURAD SHAIKH & ORS. 597
_,..                      [S.S. SINHA, J.]
                    expectation of pecuniary benefit should be A
                    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 8
                    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,
                                                                           C·
                    pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only
                    pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference
                    can, I think, be drawn from circumstances other
                    than and different from them."

             At the same time, it must be held that a mere speculative        D
 1            possibility of benefit is not sufficient. Question whether
              there exists a reasonable expectation of pecuniary
              advantage is always a mixed question of fact and law.
             The're are several decided cases on this point, providing
             the guidelines for determination of compensation in such
                                                                              -,
                                                                              E
             cases but we do not think it necessary for us to advert, as
             the claimants had not adduced any materials on the
             reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefits, which the
 ,,          parents expected. In case of a bright and healthy boy, his
    ·•       performances in the school, it would be easier for the           F
             authority to arrive at the compensation amount, which may
             be different from another sickly, unhealthy, rickety child and
             bad student, but as has been stated earlier, not an iota of
             material was produced before Shri Justice Chandrachud
             to enable him to arrive at a just compensation in such           G
             cases and, therefore, he has determined the same on an
      ;
      r
             approximation. Mr. Nariman, appearing for TISCO on his
             own, submitted that the compensation determined for the
             children of all age groups could be doubled, as in his view
             also, the determination made is grossly inadequate. Loss
                                                                              H
    598         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2009] 11 S.C.R.

                                                                          .....
A          of a child to the parents is irrecoupable, and no amount of
           money could compensate the parents. Having regard to
           the environment from which these children were brought,
           their parents being reasonably well-placed officials of Tata
           Iron and Steel Company, and on considering the
B          submission of Mr. Nariman, we would direct that the
           compensation amount for the children between the age
           group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other
                                                                                ,
           words, it should be Rs.1.5 lakhs, to which the conventional          •
           figure of Rs.50,000 should be added and thus the total
c          amount in each case would be Rs.2.00 lakhs. So far as
           the children between the age group of 10 to 15 years, they
           are all students of Class VI to Class X and are children of
           employees ot TISCO. TISCO itself has a tradition that every
           employee can get one of his children employed in the
           Company. Having regard to these facts, in their case, the
D
           contribution of Rs.12,000 per annum appears to us to be
           on the lower side and in our considered opinion, the
           contribution should be Rs.24,000 and instead of 11
           multiplier, the appropriate multiplier would be 15.
           Therefore, the compensation, so calculated on the
E          aforesaid basis should be worked out to Rs.3.60 lakhs, to
           which an additional sum of Rs.50,000 has to be added,
           thus making the total amount payable at Rs.4.10 lakhs for
           each of the claimants of the aforesaid deceased children."
                                                                                ,
                                                                            ~
F        Even by that standard, the amount of compensation
    granted by the High Court appears to be adequate in absence
    of any evidence having brought on record as to the actual
    damages.

         10. The appeal is dismissed. In the facts and
G
    circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as
    to costs.                                                              ~
                                                                            '

    N.J.                                          Appeal dismissed.

H