The court established that compensation for minors must reflect notional income and apply appropriate multipliers, ensuring just compensation for loss of dependency.

Order :

1. Despite service upon respondent No.1-owner and respondent No.2-driver, nobody has put in appearance.

2. The present civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) assailing the judgment and award dated 29.10.2014 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bikaner, (Raj.), (‘learned Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.103/2013, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-, in favour of claimants along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. while fastening the liability upon the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.12.2012, Kushal Singh(deceased) was going to purchase some grocery item from his house and when he reached on N.H.15, a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.RJ-07-SL-6798, driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No.2, hit Kushal Singh and he received simple as well as serious injuries and finally succumbed to death on 21.12.2012. The claimants, filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued and respondents Nos.1 and 2 did not appear and ex parte proceedings were drawn against them. The respondent No.3-insurance company filed reply to the claim petition while denying the averments made in the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. Oral as well as documentary evidences were produced by the claimants in support of their claim petition and on the other hand, only one witness was examined by the respondent No.3 and after hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of the claimants and held the respondents liable to pay the quantum of compensation in favour of the claimants and thus, being dissatisfied of the quantum, the appellants have preferred the instant misc. appeal.

4. 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 awarded by the learned tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased child who has succumbed to the injuries, was 13 years old and was a brilliant student of Class 8^th and the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding a meager amount of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company opposes and submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and calls for no interference by this Court.

6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record.

7. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has awarded the lump-sum amount of Rs.1,80,000/- as quantum of compensation to the appellants/claimants. However, this court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 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 deceased child as Rs. 30,000/- p.a. looking to the facts and circumstances. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari and Ors. Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Ors. : [(2022) 1 SCC 317] , where the age of the deceased child was 7 years, has taken notional income of the deceased child as Rs. 25,000/- p.a. and after applying Multiplier of 15 granted total of Rs. 3,75,000/- under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ and also an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the parents under the head of filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto and Ors. : [(2023) 1 SCC 204], where the age of the deceased child was 12 years, has taken the notional income as Rs. 30,000/- p.a. including future prospect and applied Multiplier of 15 to arrive at the compensation awardable under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ a