Honble KESHOTE, J.–This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `the Act, 1988) is directed by the claimant appellants against the award, dated 16.1.1998, of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bayana, District Bharatpur, in Claim Case No. 65/1994.

(2). Under the impugned award, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant appellants for the death of their son Gouri. The deceased was aged 4 years.

(3). The learned counsel for the claimant appellants submitted that even where the deceased, minor son of the claimant appellants, was not the earning member, on his death his notional income is to be taken at Rs. 15000/- per annum and 15 is appropriate multiplier, which ought to have been adopted by the learned Tribunal. But it has not been done and the learned Tribunal has granted a lump sum compensation of Rs. 90,000/- in favour of the claimant appellants, which is not reasonable and justified. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the claimant appellants, placing reliance on the recent pronouncement of the Honble Supreme Court in . It is submitted that where the claimant appellants fail to prove the income of the deceased, it is to be taken at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. In that case the deceased was taken a non-earning member of the family. The learned counsel for the claimant appellants submits that the deceased be taken a non-earning member as what their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court took in Manju Devis case (supra).

(4). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-claimant respondent No. 1, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, submitted that the deceased was minor son of the claimant appellants and aged 4 years and thus the amount of compensation of Rs. 90,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal in their favour is just and reasonable in which this Court may not make any enhancement. As regards to the decision on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the claimant appellants, it is urged that in the case before Honble the Supreme Court the deceased was a boy aged 13 years and thus this case is clearly distinguishable with the case before Honble Supreme Court.

(5). I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

(6). A look at the second schedule to the Act, 1988 I find that upto the age of 15 years the multiplier is stated of 15. When the Parliament, in the second schedule of the Act, 1988, has not made any difference re the multiplier to be adopted in the case of death of a boy or girl upto the age of 15 years, I am of the opinion that re the case of the deceased, being a non-earning member of the family, there cannot be made any difference with reference to the age.

(7). In the facts of this case I am satisfied that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Manju Devis case (supra). Therein the case of death of a boy of 13 years, their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court took the yearly income of the deceased of Rs. 15,000/-, taking him a non- earning member as per the second schedule and there form the amount has not been deducted for his personal expenses. Thus the for the purpose of determining the compensation for non-earning member under the head of loss of economic dependency, is to be taken at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and the multiplier of 15 is to be applied. The amount of compensation under the head of loss of economic dependency of the family in this matter comes to Rs. 2,25,000/- (15000 x 15). The learned Tribunal, under this head, has awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/-. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 1,35,000/- (2,25,000 - 90,000).

(8). On this enhanced amount the claimant appellants shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till 31st December 2000 and at the rate of 9% from 1.1.2001 till its reali

Click Here to Read the rest of this document