JUDGMENT :

H.K. Rathod, J.

Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.

2. The appellant claimants has challenged award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1181 of 1996 Ex.28 decided on 19th March 1998. The claims tribunal has awarded Rs. 91,400/- being an amount of compensation with 12% interest in favour of claimants and rest of claims are rejected. The claimants have filed claim petition claiming Rs. 4 lakhs before claims tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to claimant, deceased Shivkumar sustained bodily injuries resulting into death in a motor accident while riding on bicycle on account of rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle viz., Ambassador Car bearing registration No.GTE-2709 by the driver of said vehicle. On 14th may 1996, at about 5-45 p.m., deceased Shivkumar was coming through the area known as Bibi Talav on his bicycle and on that point of time, opponent No.1 came from behind with his car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his vehicle at the back of the cycle of deceased and caused serious injuries which resulted into death of said Shivkumar. The offending vehicle is owned by opponent No.2 and insured with opponent No.3. According to claimant, deceased was earning Rs. 3,500/- per month in Jaylaxmi Dying Works. He was studying in 11th Standard and he was earning member of family. This claim petition was opposed by insurance company filing reply Ex.11. Thereafter, issues have been framed by claims tribunal. The question of negligence is not challenged before this Court by appellant, therefore, it is not necessary to be examined by this Court. The claimant has challenged the amount of compensation which has been awarded in favour of claimant by claims tribunal.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Hemant Shah submitted that deceased boy was aged about 15 years at the time of accident. He submitted that claims tribunal has committed gross error in assessing income of deceased and ?rd deduction is also contrary to law and dependency which has been worked out Rs. 350/- and 18 multiplier has been applied. But, claims tribunal has not considered future prospective income of deceased. He also submitted that accident occurred on 14th May 1996, at that time, Motor Vehicles Act has been amended on 14th November 1994 and Section 163A read with IInd Schedule came into force. Therefore, either case of deceased is to be considered under 2nd Schedule being a non-earning member or being a earning member, then, ?rd deduction is necessary, not ?rd deduction, because, deceased was unmarried and future prospective income is required to be considered which has not been considered by claims tribunal. Therefore, he relied upon decision of Apex Court in case of Shantibai and Others v. Charan Singg and Others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 359, where, 18 years old boy belonging to labour class run over by truck leaving behind his destitute mother and two minor brothers one of whom was also a labourer @ Rs. 10/- per day. Therefore, taking a reasonable view of the victim's notional future income, the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- has been awarded by claims tribunal, held, too meager, therefore, it was enhanced by Apex Court Rs. 1,50,000/-. The relevant Para 3 is quoted as under :-

3. An unfortunate accident took place where the appellant's eldest son. aged about 18 years was run over by the offending truck insured by the respondent-Insurance Company on 17-04-1991. In the claim petition a large amount was claimed by way of compensation amounting to Rs. 10 Lakhs which prima facie appeared to be unreasonable. The Tribunal after recording evidence awarded Rs. 40,000/-. The High Court dismissed the first appeal. In our view, as the victim was aged 18 years and belonged to a labour class and even his younger brother was doing labour work and getting Rs.10 per day, it is obvious that the deceased, had he survived, would have earned a substantial amount per m