Point of Law: while dealing with the case of compensation in respect of a child of 10 years old reversed the judgment of the High Court affirming the dismissal of the claim petition by the Accidents Tribunal, followed the legal principle laid down in Latha Wadhwa case and determined the compensation

ORDER:

The appellants, who are claimants in M.V.O.P. No.42 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court (FTC), Srikakulam, instituted the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation granted vide orders dated 03.5.2005.

2. In the said O.P., the claimants averred that their son-Sunil Kumar while going to attend school in Auto bearing No.AP 30T 4957 met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of another Auto bearing No.AP 30T 5511 coming in the opposite direction and as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. They claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-towards compensation against the respondents. In support of their case, they examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. The respondents filed their respective counters, but did not adduce any oral evidence. However, Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.B.1. The Tribunal framed as many as six (6) issues and after considering the rival contentions and material on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,57,000/-towards compensation together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. However, in view of the opinion expressed by it that there is a collective contributory negligence, the Tribunal fixed the liability 50% -50% on the respondent Nos.1 & 3 and respondent Nos.2 and 4 respectively. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed this appeal.

3. Heard Mr.Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Mr.M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for New India Assurance Company Limited.

4. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Companies have not filed any appeal with regard to fixation of the liability on them. Therefore, this Court is not required to dwell into other aspects, except enhancement of compensation sought for by the claimants/ appellants.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants inter alia contends that the Tribunal erred in not granting in the compensation in toto. While contending that the appellants in fact are entitled for more compensation than the amount claimed, he would point out that the income of Rs.12,000/-per annum and multiplier of ‘11’ as adopted by the Tribunal are not correct and without valid basis. He submits that the father of the deceased is doing business and had the deceased is alive, he would have earned at least Rs.3,000/-per month and the Tribunal should have taken the multiplier as 18. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 he further submits that the appellants are entitled for Rs.70,000/-under conventional heads. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the other hand opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is well considered, just and reasonable and warrants no interference by this Court. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

7. On hearing the rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration by this Court is whether the appellants/claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case?

8. As seen from the order of the Tribunal and material on record, it is not in dispute that the deceased boy was aged about 14 years and studying 8th class at the time of the accident that took place on 24.9.2000. The Tribunal while mentioning that in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC), the modalities with regard to the fixation of compensation in case of children is evaluated, categorically observed that though the parents (in the present case) cannot be said to be financially well settled, it cannot be ruled out the possibility of good education to the child. The T