SC enhances compensation to deceased kids' families

Stating that the emotional loss of a child would have a devastating effect on the bereaved family, the Supreme Court has enhanced compensation amounts by Rs 75,000 each to the immediate kin of 29 school children who perished in a tragic bus mishap on the Yamuna river in 1997.

The apex court concurred with the plea of the aggrieved families' that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) and the Delhi High Court had failed to consider the non-pecuniary loss sustained by them on account of emotional trauma and the loss of future earning capacity of the children.

"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 visualised 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," a bench of justices SB Sinha and Mukundakam Sharma observed while allowing an appeal filed by the claimants.

On November 18, 1997, the children travelling in a bus drowned into Yamuna river, after the vehicle broke the railings at Wazirabad Yamuna Bridge and fell into the river.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) on December 6, 2004, awarded a sum of Rs 1,55,000 each to the families of the victim children between 10 to 15 years of age and Rs 1,65,000 each for those in the age group of 15 to 18 years.

Three of the children namely Kailash  Rathi, Neena Jain and Jatish Sharma were less than 10 years.

While Rs 1,05,000 were awarded as compensation to Kailash's family, kin of Neena and Jatish were provided Rs 1,30,000 and Rs 1,31,000 respectively as damages.

The aggrieved families filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court which enhanced the amount by Rs 75,000 for each claimant. Dissatisfied with the High court's verdict the families appealed in the apex court.

Upholding the families' plea, the apex court said it is extremely difficult to quantify the non-pecuniary compensation as it is to a great extent based upon the sentiments and emotions.

"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 compensated to a case where the injured person himself initiates action but is equally admissible if his dependent brings about the action," the bench said.

The apex court further said that the two lower courts failed to properly address the loss of the family considering the future prospects of the children who died.

"While considering such claims, child's performance in school, the reputation of the school etc., might be taken into consideration. In the present case, records show that the children were good in studies and were 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 as already noted, they were performing well in studies, natural consequence supposed to be a bright future," the bench added.