In cases of death caused by accident, the court must consider various factors, including the age of the deceased, their academic performance, their aptitude for a particular profession, the prevailing price structure, and the impact of their death on their family, in order to determine the appropriate amount of compensation.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 16-8-1977 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as The tribunal) awarding Rs. 10,000/-to the appellants as compensation for the death of their child aged 11/12 years who was run over by the Vehicle owned by respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 1 on 1-11-1973 The Tribunal has held that respondent No. 1 who drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and thus caused the death of the boy was primarily and respondent No. 2 and 4 were vicariously responsible to pay compensation to the appellants. The Tribunal directed that responsibility of payment of compensation is to be discharged wholly by respondent No. 4, the Oriental Fire and General- Insurance Co. Ltd. Srinagar Branch. The present appeal by the claimants is for enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Appellant No. 1 is the father and appellant No. 2 is the mother of the deceased boy who was reading in the 5th primary class in the Burn Hall High School, Srinagar. It is found that on 1-11-1973 the boy while going home after school hours was killed by the bus owned by respondent No. 2 which was driven by respondent No. 1. A claim petition for the grant of compensation to the tune of one lac and fifty thousands was filled before the Tribunal. The claim was contested by the respondents on several grounds.

3. The Tribunal raised the following issues: I/- Whether the death of Mohammad Salim deceased was caused due to the accident by bus No. 160/JKB owned by the university of the Kashmir on 1st of November, 1973. at about 4 P.M. near Khuna Khan ? O. P. Petitioners. 2/- Whether the above accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No. 1 who was driving bus No. 160/JKB belonging to non-applicant No. 2 at the time of accident ? O.P.P.

3. In case issues Nos. 1 and 2 are proved what is the quantum of compensation that the petitioner is entitled and from whom? O.P.P.

4. Relief.

4. The Tribunal found that the boy was knocked down by the aforementioned bus and as a result thereof he died on spot, Respondent No. 1 drove the bus rashly and negligently. The appellants were entitled to claim compensation for the fatal accident. The tribunal awarded Rs. 10000/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the award to the date of payment.

5. The respondents have not filed appeal against the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issues Nos 1 and 2 are final between the parties as they have not been challenged before us.

6. The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is as regards the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, the appellants, whether the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable and adequate ? The material available on the record is that the boy (Mohammad Salim) was the only son of his parents. He was reading in the 5th Primary Class in the Burn Hall High School and was active, quite healthy and promising. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has not done justice to the appellants in awarding compensation of Rs.10.000/- According to him the career of the boy was brilliant and his father was taking keen interest in his studies. If he had survived he would have become a doctor as he had aptitude for the medical profession. It is urged that taking the life span at 60 years he would have, if lived, earned more than rupees two lacs in his life time. Even if he had not become a doctor, still he would have got employment somewhere and thus could have earned at least Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- per month from the age of 25. Therefore, taking into consideration the likely pecuniary benefits that would have accursed to the parents appellants, during the life time of the boy, the compensation of Rs. 10,000/-awarded by the Tribunal was wholly inadequate and insignificant.

7. This argument is controverted by th