Impugned claim not of no fault liability.

The appellants are the claimants, the parents of the deceased. For the death of the deceased due to the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the second respondent insured with the 3rd respondent, the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking for the compensation of Rs.1,00,000.

2. The Tribunal after enquiry, concluded that the claimants would be entitled to only Rs.15,000 holding that the driver of the lorry was negligent.

3. This award is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this appeal on the ground of inadequacy of the quantum.

4. The deceased in this case was aged about 14 years at the time of the accident. He was studying in VIII Std. in Sakthi Vidya Bhavan School at Erode. On 12.9.87 at about 12.30 hours at Vasuki Street in Erode, the deceased boy was standing with his bye-cycle. At that point of time, the lorry belonging to the second respondent, which was driven by the driver, first respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased boy and the front wheel of the lorry ran over the head of the boy and caused skull fracture and other severe injuries all over his body and he died instantaneously.

5. With reference to the accident, a case was registered against the driver of the lorry for the offence under Sec.304-A, I.P.C. Ex.A-1 is the F.I.R. and Ex.A-6 is the charge-sheet copy.

6. Though the second respondent contested the claim by examining the first respondent driver stating that the driver of the lorry was not negligent, the Tribunal concluded that the driver of the lorry was negligent and as such, the owner of the lorry, the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation.

7. In this appeal there is no dispute about the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.

8. In regard to quantum, according to Mr.Untiramsamy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. the Tribunal committed a grave illegality by fixing the compensation at Rs.15,000 which is quite meager, merely on the basis that during the relevant time, the amount can be fixed for no-fault liability in the Act is Rs.15,000 He would also point out the various materials available on record to show that the claimants/appellants would be entitled to more amount of compensation.

9. On the other hand, Mr.Ganesh, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, would contend, in support of the judgment impugned, that the finding of the Tribunal in regard to the quantum is correct.

10. On going through the records and the judgment impugned, I am of the view that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the vital materials available on record in making the assessment for computing the damages in the proper perspective by following the guidelines given by this Court as well as the Supreme Court.

11. According to P.W.1 the father of the deceased, the deceased was aged about 14 years and he was hale and healthy. He was studying in VIII Std. in the school situate in Erode town. According to him, the deceased was a bright, shrewd and active student in his studies and in extra-curricular activities. In support of his statement, he also produced certificate obtained from the school Ex.A-7, which would reveal that he was a student in VIII Std. and he was a good boy.

12. According to him, the boy had a bright future and had he been alive and grown, he would have earned more and he would have supervised the lands and factory, which are owned by his father P.W.1 and thereby he would have had good prospects in life. It is also stated by P.W.1 that because of the accident, in which the boy aged about 14 years was crushed to death on the spot due to the negligent driving of the lorry driver, both the father and the mother had the mental shock and agony. On these factors, the claimants/the appellants herein sought for the compensation of Rs.1,00,000.

13. Without taking these factors into consideration the Tribunal simply fixed the compensation at Rs.15,000, mere