The court established that the notional income for a non-earning child should be set at Rs.30,000 per annum, applying a multiplier of 15 for calculating compensation, considering inflation and emotional loss.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Archana Puri, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation, so awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on account of death of their son Keshav @ Kavya Bansal, aged 5 years, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 11.03.2014.

2. On appraisal of the evidence brought on record, learned Tribunal had granted compensation, to the extent of Rs.2,05,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum.

3. So far as the fact of accident and manner of its taking place, as well as liability fastened upon the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, to be joint and several are concerned, it does not call for any further scrutiny, as the respondents, who have been made liable to pay the compensation, have not challenged the Award.

4. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that compensation granted to the appellants-claimants, on account of death of their son Keshav @ Kavya Bansal, in the accident, is meagre, which calls for extensive enhancement.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance company has refuted the claim of the appellants-claimants, while asserting that the compensation granted by learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that deceased Keshav @ Kavya Bansal is asserted to be 5 years old and he was a student. Learned Tribunal had granted lumpsum compensation to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-, on account of accidental death of Keshav @ Kavya Bansal and besides the same, under the conventional head 'funeral expenses', another sum of Rs.5,000/- has been granted. However, it should be noted that no reason, as such, has been assigned for assessing the lumpsum amount.

7. It is pertinent to mention that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as 'Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 276', while considering the death of a child, aged 10 years took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- and applied multiplier of 15' and compensation came to be Rs.4.5 lakh. Another Rs.50,000/- was given towards love, affection, funeral expenses and last rites. The accident in that case, related to the year 1992.

8. Even, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another v. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, Civil Appeal No.6902 of 2021 decided on 16.11.2021" considered the case of death of 7 years old child, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place in the year 2004 and made certain observations, which are as under:-

"11. As the claim was made under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, since the deceased child was not an earning member, the Tribunal has considered notional income as per Schedule-II for the purpose of fixing compensation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation by taking notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum by applying multiplier 15', awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- towards loss of dependency with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of judgment. When the appeals are preferred by the Insurance Company as well as the appellants herein, by the impugned common judgment, the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, and in the appeal preferred by the claimants, while confirming the compensation awarded for loss of dependency at Rs.2,25,000/-, has awarded a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and accordingly granted a total compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest @6% per annum payable by respondent No.2-Insurance Company and by permitting it to recover the same from Respondent No.1-owner of the motorcycle.

12. In the judgment in the case of Puttamma & Ors., this Court has observed that the Central Government was bestowed with the duties to amend Schedule-II in view of section 163A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but it failed to do so. In view of