Compensation for the death of a minor must reflect loss of potential happiness and contributions, not just financial earnings, with a determined notional income for assessment.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Tagore, J.

Poonam, aged 16 years, a student of 10th standard, lost her life in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 26.11.2008. The accident was caused by respondent No.1/driver while driving the offending vehicle i.e. a truck bearing registration No.JK-03A-5710, in a rash and negligent manner.

2. Grieving parents (claimants) filed the petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the respondents (driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle), seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the death of their child.

3. Respondents (driver, owner and insurer), on appearance before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter to be referred as 'Tribunal'), filed their respective pleadings. After appraisal of the evidence, learned Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 1,62,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its realisation and held all the respondents jointly and severally liable for the payment of determined amount of compensation, to the claimants.

4. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted in the impugned award, the claimants have preferred the above captioned appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that assessment of income of the deceased on notional basis is even lower than the minimum wages. The income should have been at least equal to minimum wages prevalent during the relevant period, which were Rs. 3,664/- per month for an unskilled person. The deceased was a bright student of 10th standard and used to tutor the children upto 08th standard and her contributions to the family were not less than Rs. 3,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants further states that learned Tribunal should not have assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis. However, in alternate, learned counsel for the claimants by referring to the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No.2268 of 2016 titled "Mohan Lal and others v. Satyawan and others", decided on 02.06.2023, contends that in case of assessment of income of the deceased on notional basis, same should be considered as not less than Rs. 50,000/- per annum.

6. Further, reduction of income for personal expenses of the deceased by the learned Tribunal, has also been challenged, besides assailing the grant of compensation under the conventional heads not being in terms of decisions laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others' (2018) 18 SCC 130 and 'National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others' (2017) 16 SCC 680, by stating that just and reasonable compensation ought to have been awarded along with interest as permissible.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants, thus, prayed for enhancement of compensation.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company urged that although the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, yet placing reliance on a judgment in 'Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto and others', (2023) 1 SCC 204, contends that in a similar case involving the death of a minor child aged 12 years, a student of 5th class, Hon'ble the Supreme Court assessed the notional income at Rs. 30,000/- per annum. He further argues that in the present case, there is no evidence on record suggesting that the deceased was taking tuition and was contributing Rs. 3,000/- per month to the family. It is urged that the facts of the case in Mohan Lal and others' case (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. However, learned counsel acknowledges that compensation under the conventional heads is not in line with the observations made in Magma General Insurance Company Limited's case (supra) and Pranay Sethi and others' case (supra). However, prayed for a reduction in the rate of interest granted by the learned Tribunal, stating that it was on the higher side.

9. I have he