The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles from various precedents to determine just and reasonable compensation in motor vehicle accident cases involving the death of a minor.

Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.

1. Claimants are the appellants. They are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the learned tribunal on account thereof, have challenged the judgment dated 8.10.2012 and award dated 4.6.2013 passed by First Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas at Sasaram in M.V. Claim Case No. 79 of 2010 whereby and whereunder a meager amount of Rs. 1,54,500/- has been identified to be the claim amount along with interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum. The amount paid in lieu of Section 140 of the M.V. Act has been directed to be deducted from the aforesaid amount. Kanchan Kumari, deceased aged about 10 years was knocked down by a commander jeep bearing registration No. BR-45A/0125 on 15.7.2009 at about 1:00 PM while was being rashly and negligently driven by its driver whereupon she died at the spot. Sheosagar (Baddi) P.S. Case No. 138 of 2009 was registered under Section 279, 304 of the IPC against the driver of the Mahendra Jeep. It has also been averred that at the time of death of deceased who was only daughter of her parents was a student of Class-IV having bright shining future. On account thereof, claim case was filed before the tribunal impleading the owner, driver as well as insurance company.

2. Driver as well as owner of the commander jeep have not appeared, while the insurance company appeared and filed WS wherein apart from raising ornamental objection controverted the averments whatever been made in the petition. Furthermore, the vehicle being insured at its end at the relevant time has also been admitted. The insurance company further pleaded protection in terms of Section 149 of the MV Act.

3. It is also evident from the record that vide order dated 19.8.2013 petition under Section 170 of the MC (sic MV) Act filed on behalf of insurance company had also been allowed.

4. On the rival pleading the learned tribunal had framed following issues:--

"(1) Whether the claim petition as filed is legally maintainable?

(2) Whether the accident took place on 15.7.2009 at 6.30 p.m. near Jeep Stand of Makardah, P.S.-Sheosagar (Baddi), District-Rohtas due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of jeep bearing registration No. BR-45A/0125 and Kanchan Kumari died on the spot in the said accident?

(3) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation as prayed for if yes from whom?

(4) Whether the claimants are entitled to any other relief or reliefs?"

And decided the same ultimately allowed, the claim petition. While deciding the issue No. 3, the learned tribunal had accepted the notional income that of Rs. 15,000/- and deducting 1/3rd therefrom and further applying the multiplier to 15, as well as giving the loss of estate, funeral expenses to a tune of Rs. 2500, Rs. 2000, respectively, identified the claim amount to be that of 1,54,500/-. As the claimants have already received Rs. 50,000/- under Section 140 of the MV Act therefore, the aforesaid amount was directed to be deducted and so, the insurance company has been directed to pay Rs. 1,04,500/- incurring 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the final payment.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of appellant that the finding recorded by the learned tribunal with regard to claim amount by way of identifying the notional income to the extent of fifteen thousand happens to be incorrect in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & Ors. reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244. In likewise manner it has also been submitted that learned lower court had erred in granting Rs. 2000/- in lieu of funeral expenses as well as Rs. 2500/- in lieu of loss of estate. It has further been submitted that the aforesaid finding relating to quantum of claim is liable to be interfered with and be enhanced under umbral of principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishan Gopal (supra) case.

6. At the other end, the learned counsel representing the insurance company resi