Chetana and others vs Babuji M and others. Miscellaneous First Appeal. Decided on 13 November 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/349061/1/MFA102268-19-13-11-2020.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs: 7 & 8. The deceased was aged 17 years at the time of the accident. According to the appellants, the deceased was a student and was also doing milk vending business and he was an earning member of his family. The..Tribunal concluded that the deceased was a child of 17 years and there was no evidence to show that he was engaged in milk vending and accordingly considered him as a person without income.
10. Section 2 (i) and (ii) of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) defines as follows: “(i) “adolescent” means a person who has completed his fourteenth year of age abut has not completed his eighteenth year; “(ii) “child” means a person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age or such age as may be specified in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009), whichever is more.”
11. Section 3 of the Act prohibits employment of a child in certain occupations and processes. The said Act does not prohibit the adolescent of 17 years to involve in a milk vending business. The deceased and his family are from rural area and it is common for a person of 17 years to be involved in milk vending or similar occupations. The Tribunal has completely lost sight of this fact and the reasoning is contrary to and in the teeth of the statutory provisions.
15. The deceased was aged 17 years at the time of the accident. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the applicable multiplier is ‘18’ that needs to be applied.
Appeal partly allowed.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 