IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in cases of child fatalities due to motor vehicle accidents, the compensation should be calculated using a multiplier method, taking into account the child's potential contributions to the family and adjusting for inflation in the value of money over time.

JUDGMENT :

NUPUR BHATI, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment and award dated 12.02.2013 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sumerpur, District Pali in MAC Claim Case No. 168/2010, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,25,000/-along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim, and the liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the non-claimants No. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The non-claimant No. 3 i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. was however directed to pay the compensation and recover the same from the non-claimants No. 1 and 2.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants/claimants filed claim petition under section 166, M.V. Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.80,36,000/-along with interest @ 18% on account of death of deceased Pooja (daughter of appellants/claimants No. 1 and 2) in the accident which took place on 04.01.2010. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia alleged that on 04.01.2010 the deceased (aged about 10-12 Years at the time of death), who was studying in class 5th at Adarsh Vidhya Mandir, Sumerpur, was returning to her home along with other students in the school bus numbered RJ-22-PA-0700. It was submitted by the appellants that respondent No. 4/driver was driving the bus in negligently and in high speed and eventually near SDM Bunglow, it met with an accident with a Tempo Numbered RJ-22-GA-1908, carrying Iron angles, whose driver, respondent No. 1 herein, was also driving the said Tempo negligently and in high speed. Resultantly, the Iron angles broke through the mirror window of the bus and hit the deceased and other students who were sitting inside the bus. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and ultimately died on 05.01.2010 during the course of treatment.

3. It was alleged by the appellants herein that the death of deceased occurred due to the negligent driving of both the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. respondent No. 1 and 4). It was further submitted by the appellants in the said claim petition that at the time of accident the said Tempo, owned by respondent No. 2, was insured with respondent No. 3 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) and the said school bus, owned by respondent No. 5 herein, was insured with respondent No. 6 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.). It was further submitted by the appellants that the deceased was a very good student.

4. On the contrary, it was submitted by the respondents No. 1 and 2 in the said claim petition that the respondent No. 4 is responsible for the said accident and hence, both respondents No. 4 and 6 are liable. It was further alleged that the said incident of iron angles breaking through the window of the bus was act of god and hence there is no fault of respondent No. 1. It was further alleged by respondents No. 1 and 2 that the appellants/claimants were not dependent on deceased and compensation exceeding Rs.50,000/- cannot be awarded to them.

5. In the said claim petition the respondent No. 3 denied the facts of the claim petition and submitted that only respondent No. 4 is responsible for the said accident. It was further submitted by respondent No. 3 that at the time of accident, respondent No. 1 was not carrying a valid & effective Driving License. And also the tempo was being operated against the terms & conditions the Insurance Policy.

6. The respondent No. 6 herein submitted in the said claim petition that respondent No. 4 was not was not carrying a valid & effective Driving License. And also the school bus was being operated against the terms & conditions the Insurance Policy.

7. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues including relief, which are being reproduced below:

^^1- vk;k fnukad 01-01-2010 dks oDr djhc 12-30 cts e`rdk dqek