Basant, J. –

1. How is compensation payable for loss suffered by the parents in the case of death of a non-earning minor child to be assessed? Can the Tribunals insist that such compensation payable under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot fall below the amount that would be payable under Sec.163A of the M.V. Act? These questions arise for consideration in this appeal.

2. The claimants are the appellants. They are the parents and brother of the deceased - a child aged 15 years who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 3/11/1999 and succumbed to the same. The claimants lodged a claim for compensation under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Against a claim for Rs.5,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.1,86,000/- as compensation as per the details shown below:

1. Loss of dependency - Rs.1,50,000/- (15000 x 2/5 x 15)

2. Loss of estate - Rs.15,000/-

3. Loss of love and affection – Rs.10,000/-

4. Funeral and transportation – Rs.5,000/-

5. Damage to clothing – Rs.1,000/-

6. Pain and suffering – Rs.5,000/-

----------------

Total - Rs.1,86,000/- (@ 9% per annum)

=======

3. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation awarded. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurance company. The learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned award on various grounds.

4. First of all, it is contended that the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is painfully low and inadequate. Called upon to be more specific, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the quantification of the loss of dependency is grossly inadequate and unscientific. The Tribunal erred in reckoning the annual income as Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal did not realistically take into account the status and position in life of the parents of the deceased child at all. If the Tribunal had taken into consideration all the relevant aspects including the physical, mental and intellectual accomplishments of the child, a much higher multiplicand could have been reckoned. The gross error committed by the Tribunal is in reckoning only `15,000/- as the prospective annual income. The amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation falls far below the amount which would have been payable if the claim were raised under Sec.163A of the M.V. Act. They are entitled for a much higher amount as compensation, contends counsel.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants in this context draws our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood (AIR 2001 SC 3660) and Lal Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (AIR 2001 SC 3218). These were not cases in which the claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act came up for consideration. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, points out that in these cases the Supreme Court had awarded much larger amount - about Rs.5,00,000/- in both cases as compensation for loss suffered by the parents in the case of death of minor children of aged 15 years.

6. The computation of compensation payable in respect of minor children who have not started earning has been one of the vexing problems in the law relating to computation of compensation. There are several imponderables and to arrive at a figure by deploying the multiplier-multiplicand method is always problematic. As observed by the Supreme Court in Lal Wadhwa (supra), loss of a child to the parents is ir-recoupable and no amount of money could compensate the parents. The child had not started earning and the court will have to speculate on the possible earnings of the child. Sufficient inputs to authentically ascertain the possible future placement in life of the child will not be forthcoming. The courts have to provide for several imponderables. Provision has to be made for the accelerated lump sum payment of compensation also. No ready reckoner formula can be devised for such ascertainment