Saral Srivastava, J.

1. We have heard Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.C. Nigam, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

2. The claimants-appellants have come up in the present appeal with a prayer for enhancement of the compensation.

3. The case of the claimants-appellants was that on 05.08.1994, one Mohd. Juvaid was hit by Truck No. U.R.N. 9492 while he was going to school. Mohd. Juvaid was the only son of the claimants-appellants. He was aged about 11 years, and was a student of Class-VI. The claimants-appellants prayed for a compensation of Rs.16,75,000/- .

4. The insurance company contested the claim petition contending therein that the compensation prayed for is highly excessive and exorbitant.

5. The owner and the driver of the truck filed written statement denying their liability to pay any compensation.

6. On the basis of the pleadings between the parties. The Tribunal framed as many as 7 issues. In the present appeal, the contest is only with regard to the issue no. 2 relating to quantification of compensation.

7. The Tribunal after considering various aspects of the matter assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum. The Tribunal held the dependency of the parents upon the income of deceased to be 1/3rd i.e., Rs.8,000/- per annum; and thereafter applied the multiplier of 8 corresponding to the age of parents, and awarded Rs.64,000/- towards pecuniary loss. The Tribunal further, awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation awarded was Rs.79,000/-. The Tribunal awarded 12% interest on the awarded amount.

8. Challenging the quantification of compensation, the counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in law in applying the multiplier of 8 corresponding to the age of parents, whereas, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 15 corresponding to the age of the deceased. The counsel for the appellant further submits that the deceased was a bachelor and therefore ½ should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased in computing the compensation.

9. He further submits that once the income of the deceased have been assessed treating the deceased to be unemployed or non earning person, the appellants are also entitled for future prospect, inasmuch as, the child after attaining the age of majority, must be engaged in some kind of employment to earn his livelihood. Thus, if the deceased was engaged in any kind of employment, there was always likelihood of increase in the income of the deceased and therefore, future prospect theory should be attracted in the present case. The submission is that the claimants are entitled for 40% future prospect in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 2017 (4) UPLBEC 2633 (S.C.).

10. The last submission of the counsel for the appellant is that very meager amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded towards loss of estate, and no amount has been awarded towards funeral expenses.

11. The counsel for the Insurance Company on the other hand has urged that the deceased was a minor, and therefore, the Tribunal was right in applying the multiplier corresponding to the age of the parents.

12. On the issue of future prospect, he submits that no assumption can be made as regard the income of minors, and therefore, the theory of future prospect is not attracted in the case of minor. He submits that the Apex Court judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) nowhere spells out that the theory of future prospect is also attracted in the case of minor. Thus, his submission is that the theory of future prospect should not be stretched to a limit where there is no material to indicate that the minor could engage in any kind of employment. The counsel for the respondent lastly submits that the 12% interest awarded by the Tribunal is