In assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, the Court should consider the future prospects of the deceased's career and the pecuniary help that the claimants could reasonably expect from the deceased.

1. In this First Appeal from Order directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab, the sole question that arises for determination is as to the quantum of compensation to which the appellants are entitled on account of the death of their son Ajay Kumar aged about seventeen years. The facts can be stated in a very narrow compass.

2. On 19th October, 1960, the fateful day, Ajay Kumar deceased, had gone to the Bazar in She town of Barnala, District Sangrur, on a bicycle and at about 3-45 p.m. he was standing near the pavement with his bicycle when bus No. PNC 996 driven by Gurdial Singh respondent No. 2, owned by Malerkotla Bus Service Private Ltd. Malerkotla, respondent No. i, and insured with the Northern India Motor Owners Insurance Company Ltd., respondent No.3, coming from the railway station side struck against him. Ajay Kumar, as a result of impact of the mud-guard of the rear wheel, fell on the ground along with his bicycle about three-four feet away from the footpath and the bicycle fell upon him. The bus, it is alleged, was running at a very high speed though the prescribed speed limit in the Bazar was five miles per hour, and the driver did not even blow the horn. He stopped the bus at a distance of 40/45 feet from the place of the accident. The injured was taken in the same bus to the Civil Hospital, Baraala, where his injuries were examined by Dr. Nawal Kishore Dhir, A.W.1. The condition of the injured being serious, he was removed to the Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, where he expired. The impact of the bus against the body of the injured caused internal haemorrhage and in the opinion of the doctor the injuries, especially injury No. 1 which was a contusion in the kidney region in the left of the abdomen, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

3. The parents who are mother and father of the deceased filed a claim application in respect of this accident or Ist December, 1960, and an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was claimed as damages.

4. The respondents denied that the eath was caused as a result of any rash or egligent act of Gurdial Singh respondent, river of the bus. It was pleaded by them hat the bus was being driven at the speed if five miles per hour because of the rush in the Bazar on account of Diwali festival. The boy, according to these respondents, was standing on the wrong side of the road and Gurdial Singh driver was blowing the horn. It was pleaded that the bus actually safely passed by the deceased and it had not struck against the deceased. The driver pleaded ignorance about the accident and, stated that he had in fact gone about tee yards from the place of the accident when an alarm was raised and it was then that he came to know that the boy had fallen down with a bicycle. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

(1) Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of PNC-996 or whether the deceased was negligent himself or he was guilty of contributory negligence, and if so, its effect ?

(2) Whether the policy is void on the ground as alleged in additional plea No. 2 in the written statement filed by respondent No. 3 (subject to objection by Mr. V.N. Bhatnagar Advocate).

(3) What is the quantum or compensation due, if any, and from whom to whom; and effect of additional plea No. 1 of respondent No. 3 ?

(4) Relief?

5. Issue No. (1) was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the appellants whereas issue No. (2) was found against the respondents. Under issue No. (3), the quantum of damages was fixed at Rs. 4,320/- with costs, against the respondents. It has been directed by the Tribunal that the whole amount awarded by it as compensation shall be paid by the Northern India Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3, within two months from the date of the award. Hence the present appeal by the appellants who were dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them.

6. The incident was w