Point of Law: Notional figure fixed by the Apex Court since Manju Devi's judgment has been consistently Rs.2,25,000/- for children below the age of 15 years.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 327 of 2009 (Anil Kumar and others Vs. Mohammad Aarif and others), whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.77,000/-as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of judgment and order.

2. The claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of quantum.

3. The brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal by the claimants-appellants with the averments that on 06.02.2009 deceased-Upendra Kumar was going to school from his home at about 8:45 AM, when he was going through Bilari-Moradabad road then a truck bearing No.U.P. 21 N 6454 came on the way, which was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver and truck hit the deceased. In this accident, deceased sustained fatal injuries and he died on the spot. Respondents filed their respective written statements. Learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, awarded Rs.77,000/-to the petitioner nos.1 & 2 who are deceased’s father and mother respectively.

4. Aggrieved mainly with the compensation awarded, the appellants preferred this appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence has been decided in favour of the appellants herein. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on it by the Tribunal. The only issued to be decided is the quantum of compensation.

7. This is a claimants appeal, claiming enhancement of award for the death of a child who was 15 years of age at the time of his death. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased was a brilliant student and he had very bright future. This aspect is not considered by the Tribunal. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the notional income of the deceased is taken Rs.15,000/-per annum by the Tribunal. It is next submitted that learned Tribunal has held that the contribution of the deceased towards his family was only assumed as 1/3rd of his income and in this way the Tribunal has awarded only 1/3rd of his income as compensation, which is not just and proper.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the judgment and order passed by Tribunal also does not suffer from any such infirmity or illegality which may call for any interference by this court.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the award is bad and relied on decision of this Court and Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013 (131) AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC) and Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC) relied by this Court in its recent decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Mumtaz Ahmad and Another, 2017 (2) AICC 1229 wherein this Court held as follows:

"6. Sri Ram Singh has heavily relied on the decision in the case of Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013 (131) AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC) and Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC). It goes without saying the notional figure fixed by the Apex Court since Manju Devi's judgment has been consistently Rs.2,25,000 for children below the age of 15 years. I think that is just and proper and hence, the amount requires to be enhanced from Rs.1,57,000 to Rs.2,25,000 with 6% be recovered from the owner. The appeal is partly allowed. The cross-objection is also partly allowed."

10. The judgment of Kisan Gopal (Supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in this case the apex court did not deduct any amount towards personal expenses.