2013 ACJ 2445 a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court decided the compensation to be awarded in the case of minor aged 5 years. In para No.8 the Apex Court quoted R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt.Ltd. : 1995 (1) SCC 511 wherein while assessing non-pecuniary damages, the for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered and that are likely to be suffered, any future damages for the loss of amenities in life like difficulty in running, participation in active sports and damages on account of inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration etc. have to be addressed especially in the case of a child victim. For a child, the best part of his life is yet to come. So, while considering the claim of victim child, it would be unfair and improper to follow the structured formula in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The main stress in the formula is on technical damages. For children there is no income. The only indication in the Second Schedule for non-earning person is to take the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per year. A child cannot be equated to such a non-earning person. Therefore, the compensation is to be worked under non-pecuniary heads in addition to the actual amount incurred for treatment and or to
