In motor accident claims involving the death of a child or student, compensation must be assessed by adopting the minimum wage of a skilled worker as the base income, incorporating future prospects, and applying the appropriate multiplier to ensure the award is just and reasonable.

JUDGMENT

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. The aforesaid three appeals have been instituted against the Award dated 04.01.2020 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short “Tribunal”) in the petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation on account of deaths of Piyush, Ranjana Kapoor and Harshita in a motor vehicular accident due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1-Vikrant Saklani, while driving the offending Volvo Bus No.HR38-Y-0099 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

2. Claim petition No.64 of 2019 in FAO-2104-2021, titled ‘Sunita and another Versus Vikrant Saklani and others’, was instituted by the parents of deceased-Piyush, aged 5 years, for grant of compensation on account of death of their son.

3. Claim petition No.70 of 2019 in FAO-2654-2021, titled ‘Rajesh Kapoor Versus Vikrant Saklani And others’, was instituted by the father of deceased-Ranjana Kapoor, aged 18 years, for grant of compensation on account of death of his daughter.

4. Claim petition No.60 of 2019 in FAO-3296-2021, titled ‘Rajesh Kapoor Versus Vikrant Saklani And others’, was instituted by father of deceased- Harshita, aged 9 years, for grant of compensation on account of death of his daughter.

5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by learned Tribunal in MACP-64-2019:-

1. Whether Mr. Piyush has died in a road side accident due to sole rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration no.HR38-Y-0099 by respondent no.1? OPP

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent no.1 was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3.

4. Relief.

6. The following issues were framed by learned Tribunal in the claim petition No.MACP-70-2019:-

1. Whether Ms. Ranjana Kapoor has died in a road side accident due to sole rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration no. HR38-Y-0099 by respondent no.1? OPP

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent no.1 was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3.

4. Relief.

7. The following issues were framed by learned Tribunal in the claim petition No.MACP-60-2019:-

1. Whether Ms. Harshita has died in a road side accident due to sole rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration no.HR38-Y-0099 by respondent no.1? OPP

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent no.1 was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3.

4. Relief.

8. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

9. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,65,000/- as compensation for the death of Piyush, Rs.11,10,000/- for the death of Ranjana Kapoor and Rs.4,65,000/- for the death of Harshita along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions till realization payable by respon