R.K. MALIK AND ANR. versus KIRAN PAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 87 · Decided: 15-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 87 
I . 
,., 
R.K. MAUK AND ANR. 
A 
-
v. 
KIRAN PAL AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3608 of 2009) 
' 
MAY 15, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
,. 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 163A and 166 rlw 168; 
Second Schedule - Bus carrying school children met with 
accident and fell into river from bridge - Death of 29 children c 
- Most of them were in the age group of 10 to 18 years -
Claim for compensation by parents of deceased children -
Courts below awarded pecuniary compensation, on basis of 
Second Schedule and relevant multiplier under the Act, which 
in majority of the casAs ranged from Rs. 1, 55, 0001- to D 
Rs.1,65,0001- -
Though Tribunal did not award any non-
pecuniary compensation, the High Court awarded non-
pecuniary damages of Rs. 75, 0001- -
On appeal, held: 
Pecuniary damages seeks to compensate losses which_ can 
be translated into money terms like loss of earnings, actual E 
and prospective earning and other out of pocket expenses -
On facts, no reason to differ with Courts below in respect of 
,,. 
award of pecuniary compensation - As regards non-pecuniary 
damages, the same include immeasurable elements such as 
pain, suffering, loss of amenity and enjoyment of life and on F 
facts, High Court rightly enhanced compensation in this 
category by Rs. 75,0001- - However, compensation must also 
be granted with regard to future prospects of the children, 
which aspect was overlooked by both the Courts below - The 
records showed that the children were good in studies and G 
,. 
). 
studying in a reasonably good school and naturally, their 
future prospect was presumably good and bright and hence, 
it would be appropriate to grant further amount of Rs. 75, 0001 
- (which is roughly half the pecuniary compensation) as 
87 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
~ compensation for future prospects of the children. 
3 
A bus carrying school children met with accident and 
fell into tihe Yamuna river from the bridge. Consequent to 
the accident, 29 children died. The parents of the 
deceased children i.e. the appellants filed claim petitions 
on account of fault liability and sought for payment of 
compensation under section 163A r/w Second Schedule 
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the 
~ 
_, 
accident took place due to negligence of the driver 
(respondent no.1) and, therefore, he alongwith the owner 
and the insurer (respondent nos.2 and 3) were jointly and 
severally liable to pay compensation and thereafter 
awarded a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- in case of children 
J 
between age group of 10 to 15 years and Rs.1,65,000/- in 
case of children between 15 to 18 years. In case of 
children aged less than 10 years, Rs.1,05,000/- was 
awarded in one case and in two other cases Rs.1,30,000/ 
- and Rs!.1,31,000/- respectively was awarded. Additional 
E 
Rs.1,000/- was awarded in case of the third child aged 
less than 10 years, as in some other cases, for loss of 
books. Tile compensation figure included Rs. 5,000/- each 
towards funeral and last rites. As per the Second 
Schedule of the Act, the balance amount was awarded 
F 
for loss of dependency that was calculated on notional 
income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum of which Rs. 5,000/-
was deducted towards personal living expenses. The 
Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 for children below 15 
years and multiplier of 16 for children between 16 and 18 
G years respectively. It awarded interest @ 6% for four 
years. 
On appeal, the High Court, by the impugned 
judgment, held that the appellants were entitled to 
enhancement of compensation in all the cases by 
H Rs.75,000/- and Rs.1000/- (if not already awarded by the 
-
• 
R.K. MALIK AND ANR. v. KIRAN PAL AND ORS. 
89 
... 
Tribunal) and interest@ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing A 
""""-
of the claim petition till payment. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Compensation in law is paid to restore the 
person, who has suffered damage or loss in the same B 
position, if the tortuous act or the breach of contract had 
not been committed. The law requires that the party 
suffering should be put in the same position, if the 
contract had been performed or the wrong had not been 
committed. The law in all such matters requires payment C 
of 
adequate, 
reasonable 
and 
just 
monetary 
• 
compensation. [Para 10) [99-F-G] 
1.2. In cases of motor accidents the endeavour is to 
put the dependents/claimants in the pre-accidental 0 
p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.