MV Act- compentation for death of children

''whether status of parents should be considered while awarding compensation on account of accidental death of minor children ?'' The supreme court in Civil Appeal no 3608/2009, R.K.Malik and Anr v. Kiran Pal and Ors., decided on 15/5/2009, had occasion to consider this issue.

In this case, children of claimants were studying in school. when these children were proceeding to the school in a bus the bus after overrunning the road and breaking the railing got drowned in Yamuna river at WazirabadYamunaBridge. Consequent to the accident, 29 children died. the tribunal calculated the compensation applying the multiplier provided under schedule but did not award any compensation on acount of non pecuniary loss. the high court enhanced the compensation by 75000/ on account of nonpecuniary loss. the supreme court further enhanced this amount by 75000/. The supreme court took in cosideration the performance of children in school but not the financial status of their parents.

The supreme court held that:

"no amount of compensation can restore the lost limb or the experience of pain and suffering due to loss of life. Loss of a child, life or a limb can never be eliminated or ameliorated completely. To put it simply-pecuniary damages cannot replace a human life or limb lost. Therefore, in addition to the pecuniary losses, the law recognises that payment should also be made for non pecuniary losses on account of, loss of happiness, pain, suffering and expectancy of life etc. The Act provides for payment of "just compensation" vide section 166 and 168. It is left to the courts to decide what would be "just compensation" in facts of a case."

The real problem that arises in the cases of death of children is that they are not earning at the time of the accident. In most of the cases they were still studying and not working. However, under no stretch of imagination it can be said that the parents, who are appellants herein, have not suffered any pecuniary loss. In fact, Loss of dependency by its very nature is awarded for prospective or future loss.

It is extremely difficult to quantify the non pecuniary compensation as it is to a great extent based upon the sentiments and emotions. But, the same could not be a ground for non-payment of any amount whatsoever by stating that it is difficult to quantify and pinpoint the exact amount payable with mathematical accuracy.

Human life cannot be measured only in terms of loss of earning or monetary losses alone. There are emotional attachments involved and loss of a child can have a devastating effect on the family which can be easily visualized and understood. Perhaps, the only mechanism known to law in this kind of situation is to compensate a person who has suffered non-pecuniary loss or damage as a consequence of the wrong done to him by way of damages/monetary compensation. Undoubtedly, when a victim of a wrong suffers injuries he is entitled to compensation including compensation for the prospective life, pain and suffering, happiness etc., which is sometimes described as compensation paid for "loss of expectation of life". This head of compensation need not be restricted to a case where the injured person himself initiates action but is equally admissible if his dependant brings about the action.

This pain and suffering does not depend upon the financial position of the victim or the claimant but rather on the capacity and the ability of the deceased to provide happiness to the claimant. This compensation is paid for loss of prospective happiness which the claimant/victim would have enjoyed had the child not been died at the tender age.

The supreme court held that the claim with regard to future prospect should have been be addressed by the courts below. While considering such claims, child's performance in school, the reputation of the school etc. might be taken into consideration. In the present case, the court found that the children were good in studies and studying in a reasonably good school. Naturally, their future prospect 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 they were performing well in studies, natural consequence supposed to be a bright future. In the case of Lata Wadhwa v. State of bihar (2001)8 scc 197 and M. S. Grewal v. Deep chand (2001)8 scc 151, the Supreme Court recognised such future prospect as basis and factor to be considered. Therefore, denying compensation towards future prospects was held unjustified. Keeping this in background, facts and circumstances of the present case, and following the decision in Lata Wadhwa (supra) and M. S. Grewal (supra), the supreme court granted compensation of Rs. 75,000/- (which was 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.