The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of parents to compensation in case of the death of a minor child, based on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived, and the application of interest on the compensation amount.

D.G. Karnik, J.

This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th July, 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa (for short "the Tribunal"), awarding compensation of Rs. 55,000/- on account of death of Mast. Suraj, the son of the Appellants. By this appeal, the Appellants claim enhancement of the compensation.

2. Master Suraj, (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was the elder son of the Appellants, born on 12th January, 1986 and at the relevant time was studying in Lourdes Convent High School at Saligao, Bardez, Goa. On 5th September, 1997 at about 12.45 hours, he was proceeding on a bicycle from his residence at Salmona Aradim to a shop near Padmanabh building. At that time a bus bearing registration No. GA-O1-T-2329 belonging to the Respondent No. 2. which was being driven by the Respondent No. 1, came from opposite direction and knocked down the deceased. The rear wheel of the bus ran over the body of the deceased who succumbed to the injuries and died due to hemorrhage and shock. The Appellants who are the parents of the deceased filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear and did not file any written statement. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company however, appeared and contested the claim.

3. Before the Tribunal, the Appellants examined five witnesses. The father of the deceased was examined as witness No. 1. pancha witness was examined as witness No. 2, one eye witness was examined as witness No. 3, informant was examined as witness No. 4 and Investigating Officer was examined as witness No. 5. After considering the evidence of the witnesses and in particular the eye witness, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No. 1. The Tribunal then considered the claim of compensation and found that the claim of Rs. 4,00,000/- was excessive and exorbitant and reduced the claim to Rs. 55,000/-. Aggrieved by the reduction in the claim, the Appellants are in appeal.

4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3-Insurance Company did not advance any argument on the question of negligence. The findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal that the accident was caused solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No. 1 which resulted into death of the deceased is therefore confirmed.

5. On the question of compensation, the learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was too low. With regard to the computation of compensation in case of a death of minor child the learned Counsel for the Appellants referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in (1) Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2001) 8 SCC 197, (2) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender and others, (2006) 13 SCC 60, (3) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim and others, (2007) 11 SCC 512.

6. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 3 submitted that the Tribunal has applied the correct principles for determination of compensation in case of death of a minor child. He submitted that the amount of compensation of Rs. 55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal was just and adequate. In support, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Kaushlya Devi v. Karan Arora and others, (2007) 11 SCC 120. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 further submitted that the rate of interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal at 12% per annum was excessive and, the interest ought not to have been awarded at more than 6% per annum. He submitted that under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the interest pendente lite as well as the interest subsequent to the award was in the discretion of the Court and should not have been granted in excess of 6% per annum.

7. The decision of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar an