The second deceased was a school going child aged about
12 years. She had a whole future to look forward in life with all
normal human aspirations. She died prematurely due to the
accident at a very tender age for no fault of hers even before she
could start to understand the beauty and joys of life with all its
ups and downs. The loss of a human life untimely at childhood
can never be measured in terms of loss of earning or monetary
loss alone. The emotional attachments involved to the loss of the
child can have a devastating effect on the family which needs to
be visualised and understood. Grant of nonpecuniary
damages for the wrong done by awarding compensation for loss of expectation in life is therefore called for. Undoubtedly the injury
inflicted by deprivation of the life of the child is very difficult to
quantify. The future also abounds with uncertainties. Therefore,
the courts have used the expression “just compensation” to get
over the difficulties in quantifying the figure to ensure
consistency and uniformity in awarding compensation. This
determination shall not depend upon financial position of the
victim or the claimant but rather on the capacity and ability of
the deceased to provide happiness in life to the claimants had
she remained alive. The compensation is for loss of prospective
happiness which the claimant would have enjoyed had the child
not died at the tender age. Since the child was studying in a
school and opportunities in life would undoubtedly abound for
her as the years would have rolled by, compensation must also
be granted with regard to future prospects. It can safely be
presumed that education would have only led to her better
growth and maturity with better prospects and a bright future for which compensation needs to be granted under nonpecuniary
damages. (See R.K. Malik vs. Kiran Pal, (2009) 14 SCC 1).
13. The income of the minor girl child is incapable of precise
fixation. We find no reason to interfere with the assessed notional
income of the second deceased.
It is well settled legal
principle that in addition to awarding
compensation for pecuniary losses, compensation
must also be granted with regard to the future
prospects of the children. It is incumbent upon the
courts to consider the said aspect while awarding
compensation…”
14. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satender, (2006) 13
SCC 60, the deceased victim of the accident was a nine year old
school going child. Considering the claim for loss of future
prospects in absence of a regular income, it was observed that
the compensation so determined had to be just and proper by a
judicious approach and not fixed arbitrarily or whimsically. The
uncertainties of a young life were noticed in the following terms:“
12. In cases of young children of tender age, in
view of uncertainties abound, neither their income
at the time of death nor the prospects of the future
increase in their income nor chances of
advancement of their career are capable of proper
determination on estimated basis. The reason is
that at such an early age, the uncertainties in
regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in
career and thereafter advancement in life are so
many that nothing can be assumed with
reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income
of the deceased child is capable of assessment on
estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by
the parents is capable of mathematical
computation.”
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2624 OF 2020
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS
AUTHOR: NAVIN SINHA, J.
Dated: June 18, 2020
Print Page
