The court's decision emphasized the importance of accurately assessing the deceased's income, applying the proper multiplier, and considering compensation under conventional heads in motor accident claims.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellant claimant and Mr. Rathin Raval, learned advocate for respondent No. 3-insurance company.

2. The present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is preferred for enhancement of the compensation awarded to the appellant claimant by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 5.11.2019 rendered in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 655 of 2016.

3. Considering the issue which moves in narrow compass, with the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

4. Since the issue of enhancement of quantum of compensation is involved in the present appeal, presence of the driver and owner of offending vehicles is not necessary.

5. Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the appellant submits that income of the minor deceased is considered at very lower side by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to his submission, the Tribunal ought to have considered Rs. 3400/- as monthly income of the deceased. It is his further submission that after deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, datum figure of Rs. 1600/- ought to have been considered by the Tribunal. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the conventional heads of loss of consortium and love and affection. He, therefore, urges that the Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 40,000/- including Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses under the conventional head. He, therefore, submits that award of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly by enhancing compensation awarded to the claimants.

6. Mr. Rathin Raval, learned advocate for the insurance company has supported the impugned judgment and award. He stoutly submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing monthly income of the deceased who was minor at the time of accident. According to his submission, the Tribunal has also not committed any error in adopting multiplier, as also considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has not committed any error in not awarding compensation under the head of conventional compensation. He, therefore, submits that the appeal may be dismissed.

7. I have considered rival submissions and have also perused the impugned judgment and award.

8. It is undisputed fact which emerges from the impugned judgment that the deceased was aged three years at the time of accident and therefore, non-earning person. It is always difficult to assess income of non-earning person, that too of a minor victim. Under such circumstances, task of the Tribunal becomes very honours in assessing monthly income of the deceased minor victim. The Tribunal has therefore to do some guess work to determine reasonable notional income of the minor victim of the motor vehicular accident. As per the settled proposition of law that for assessing the notional income of the minor victim, the Tribunal has to take into inconsideration the attendant facts such as family background of the minor victim. Considering overall facts, more particularly, year of the accident i.e. 2016, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal ought to have assessed Rs. 3200/- as notional income of the deceased instead of Rs. 1250/- per month. This datum figure needs to be reduced by 50% to determine dependency benefits of the appellant.

9. The Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 15. However, considering the age of the deceased, proper multiplier, in my view, would be 18. Moreover, it is rightly submitted by Mr.Modi that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the conventional head. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, ends of justice would meet if Rs. 40,000/- is awarded towards conventional amount including Rs. 15,000/- for last rites.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is