Satish Chandra, J.—

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 17.12.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sitapur in Claim Petition No. 202/2012 for the enhancement of the compensation, awarded by the Tribunal.

The brief facts of the case are that on 19.03.2012 at about 17.15, the deceased Ikrar was going on cycle to purchase the grossery items. When he reached main Sindholi Road, the driver of the Car No. UP 34 K/8949 who was driven the car rashly and negligently hit the cycle of the deceased near Puliya. The deceased fallen down and he was taken to the District Hospital, Sitapur from where he was referred to the Medical College. On 21.04.2012, the deceased died in the hospital. A Case Crime No. 102/2012 was registered against the driver of the car. The claimants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, who has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,01,100/-. Not being satisfied, the claimants-appellants have filed the present appeal for the enhancement of the compensation.

With this background, Sri R.R. Srivastava, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the deceased was not educated, but he was a hawker and selling the juice. The deceased was earning of Rs.250/- per day. Notional income was not considered by the Tribunal. The compensation amount is meager. The deceased was self-employed person though he was a minor.

None appeared on behalf of the opposite parties.

After hearing learned counsel and on perusal of the record, it appears that on 19.03.2012, the accident took place as mentioned above. The event of the accident and involvement of the Alto Car No. U.P. 34 K/8949 are not in dispute. On the date of accident, the car was insured by M/s. Reliance Insurance Company. On the day of accident, the policy was alive. The driver of the vehicle, Sri Sandeep Srivastava was holding a valid driving license.

Only dispute in the present appeal is pertaining to the quantum. It is claimed by the appellants that the deceased was self-employed person though he was a minor. From the medical report, his age was determined as 11-12 years. Thus, he was a child of 11-12 years and he cannot be self-employed anywhere as per the law. He cannot be a self-employed person, as the child can not be engaged in any occupation or employment. So, the income claimed by the appellants-claimants cannot be taken into consideration. If he was engaged in the self-employment, than the claimants-appellants are responsible and can be punished as per law.

In these circumstances, it is evident that on the date of accident, the deceased was a minor child of 11-12 years and was not earning. When it is so, then the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation which includes the funeral charges, mental agony, etc.

Needless to mentioned that in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Ors.; 2003 (7) SCC 484, it was held as under:

"7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be "just and reasonable". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be 'just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document