The court emphasized the obligation to award just, fair, and reasonable compensation in motor vehicle accidents, considering non-pecuniary losses and relevant economic factors.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 30.4.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 305 of 1992 granting compensation of Rs. 2,02,000/- in favour of respondents no. 1 and 2, appellant Insurance Company has filed present appeal.

2. Facts, in brief, are as under:-

Claimant Ashok was sleeping with his son Shudhodhan at village Sillori, his in-laws place by the side of house. Tractor bearing registration No. MH-31/G-3353 and Trolly No. MH-31/5580 driven by original respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 driven in reverse direction dashed against the cot on which two were sleeping. Shuddhodhan fell down and Trolly ran over him as a result of which he died on the spot.

3. Respondents no. 1 and 2 (driver and owner) of the Tractor/Trolly did not respond to the notice. Respondent no. 3 Insurance Company resisted the claim on the ground that accident was caused due to the negligence of respondent no. 2 since he with his son was sleeping by the side of road. Besides, respondent no. 1 driver was not holding valid driving licence and, therefore, there was breach of policy conditions.

4. The Tribunal held that accident was caused due to negligence of respondent no. 1. The Tribunal granted Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants as compensation towards loss of life on account of loss of claimant’s only son and for plight, agony and miseries suffered by family members. Even though Shudhodhan was aged about 2 years, the Tribunal considered statutory notional income and held that after attaining majority, he would have earned Rs. 15,000/- per year and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses, the compensation as per structural formula would have come to Rs. 10,000/- per year only. The Tribunal applied “15” as multiplier and thus awarded Rs. 2,02,000/- to the claimants.

5. Learned counsel for appellant contends that respondent no. 1 was not holding valid driving licence and as such, no liability should have been fastened against the insurer. He strenuously contended that deceased was only two years old and therefore, there was no question of any loss of dependency or any income being earned by the deceased at least for a period of sixteen years more till the deceased attained majority. He further contends that consequently the compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal by taking a notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and applying multiplier of 15 years is entirely unfounded. Learned counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in working out the notional compensation by adopting the pre-structured formula under Section 163A of the Act particularly when the said provision was nonexistent on the date of incident and it was introduced for the first time by Act No. 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. In the alternative, learned counsel for appellant contends that the Tribunal should have awarded compensation inclusive of the one awarded under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in the sum of 25,000/- with interest @ 15% per annum.

6. When victim of the motor vehicle accident is child, aged two years, the immediate loss to parents of the child is huge, non-pecuniary or cannot be compensated in terms of money. There are immense pains and sufferings for parents and family members of child. A child is lost for ever. If it is only child, loss would collosal felt constantly during lifetime of parents. Of course, it is not in dispute that age of the parents would be relevant in such case. In the present case, during the pendency of appeal, father of the victim child is reported to be dead on 27.5.2007 and respondent no. 2 is the only surviving legal representative for the victim. We have to bear in mind that deceased Shudodhan was the only child of respondents no. 1 and 2. In these circumstances, although plethora of rulings has been cited by learned counsel for the applicants and respondent Satyafula, I think it cannot be dispu