JUDGMENT :

I. INTRODUCTION:

1. The instant appeal arises out of an award made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as the “learned tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 04 of 2022 dated 01.02.2007 by partly allowing the claim of the claimants.

II. Case of the claimants and respondents before the learned tribunal:

2. Briefly the case of the claimants before the learned tribunal was that the deceased died of injuries sustained in an accident which occurred on 02.01.1998, and was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing Registration No. UP 52A/2047. The offending vehicle was insured by respondent no. 3-Insurance Company. On the fateful day, the deceased was returning his house from the school when he met with the accident. The claimants are the parents of the deceased Shyam Narayan. The deceased was 18 years of age at the time of his death.

III. Compensation awarded by the learned tribunal:

3. The learned tribunal in the impugned judgement dated 01.02.2007 awarded compensation which is depicted in the tabulated form hereunder:

4. The claimants seek enhancement of compensation by means of the instant appeal.

IV. Submissions of learned counsels for the parties:

5. Sri Daya Shankar, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation was not rightly calculated. The learned tribunal erred in law and incorrectly calculated the income, applied an illegal multiplier and neglected to award future prospects which is in teeth of the law laid by Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Urmila Shukla and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 822 as well as National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680. The claimants were entitled to a higher amount.

6. Shri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company does not satisfactorily dispute the said submissions.

V. Issue for Consideration:

7. After advancing their arguments, learned counsels for the respective parties agree that only the following question falls for consideration in these appeals:

Whether the learned tribunal erred while determining the compensation under these heads: income, future prospects, application of multiplier, conventional heads and interest? If yes, the amount to which the claimants are entitled?

VI. Issue of income of the deceased:

8. The question of income of a child while determining compensation to be paid is a vexed question of facts and law. In many cases the children are entirely dependant on their parents and are not earning. Moreover, even if they are earning, the documentary evidence to support such facts is hard to come by.

9. The Motor Vehicles Act bifurcates children into two categories, namely children below the age of 15 years and those above that age. In a former class, a notional income of Rs. 15,000/-per annum is stipulated in the statute. However, the sum was enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-per annum by various judicial authorities. Children above 15 years of age are treated as a separate class by the legislature. This is evident from the multiplier system in Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Company and another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 which govern calculation of income of a deceased child in the latter category.

10. The application of multiplier system to children above 15 years i