IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation for the death of a minor must reflect loss of dependency, applying a multiplier based on age and relevant legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

1. The instant misc. appeal, seeking enhancement, has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as ‘the Act’) against the judgment and award dated 30.04.2013 (hereinafter as ‘the impugned award’) passed by MACT (I), Jodhpur (hereinafter as ’the learned tribunal’) in MAC Case no. 616/2010 (filed under Section 166 of the Act), whereby the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest @8.5% (from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 31.07.2010) to the appellants/claimants and held the respondents/non-claimants jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 09.08.2001 Manoj (5 years old at the time of the accident) was travelling on the bike bearing registration no. RJ24 M 1222, which was being ridden by Mr. Prem Singh, as a pillion rider along with his mother-Mrs. Meera and one other person. And at around 3:45PM, the truck bearing registration no. RJ16U6001 (hereinafter as ‘the offending vehicle’), which was being driven by the Respondent no.1/owner-driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed into the bike and as a result of the accident Manoj (hereinafter as ‘the deceased child’) died during the course of treatment. The FIR no. 75 was lodged before the Police Station Looni on 09.08.2001 and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Respondent no. 1/owner-driver. Subsequently, the the appellants/claimants filed the claim petition-MAC Case no. 616/2010 under Section 166 of the Act before the learned tribunal, seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased child. As the respondent no.1/owner-driver failed to appear before the learned tribunal despite completion of due service, ex-parte proceeding was drawn against him. A reply to the claim petition was filed by the respondent no.2/insurance company before the learned tribunal.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties learned tribunal framed four issues. The appellants/claimants examined four witnesses and produced 23 documentary evidences. The respondents did not produce any evidence before the learned tribunal. After hearing the parties and on the basis of the material available on record the leaned tribunal partly allowed the MAC case no. 616/2010 vide the impugned award and awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest @8.5% (from the date of the filing of the claim petition i.e., 31.07.2010) as compensation to the appellants/claimants and held respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned award the instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants.

5. The service of the Respondent no.1/owner-driver was dispensed with vide order dated 21.07.2016.

6. Since there is no dispute as to the facts of the case the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants has restricted his submissions only to the quantum of the compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding such meager compensation on account of the death of the deceased child.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent no.2/insurance company refutes the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants and submits that the learned tribunal has awarded just compensation as the award was passed way back in 2010.

9. Heard the counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.

10. This court finds that the learned tribunal has awarded the lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants. However, this court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishan Gopal and Ors. Vs. Lala and Ors.[(2014) 1 SCC 244], where the age of the deceased child was 10 years has taken the notional income of the decea