JUDGMENT

Ajay Bhanot, J.

I. Introduction:

This appeal arises out of an award made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar, hereinafter referred to as the "learned tribunal" in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 24 of 2012 (Smt. Subhadra Devi and another v. Jogendra Anand and others) dated 27.04.2015 by partly allowing the claim of the claimants.

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

2. The claimants are the parents of the deceased Km. Sanju.

3. Briefly the case of the claimants before the learned tribunal was that Km. Sanju was a student of class 12th when she died of injuries sustained in an accident which occurred on 02.03.2012. The accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing registration No. HR 55 B 4795. The offending vehicle was insured by respondent no. 3 Vidhi Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. The deceased was 16 years of age at the time of her death.

III. Compensation awarded by the learned tribunal:

4. The learned tribunal in the impugned judgement dated 02.03.2012 awarded compensation which is depicted in the tabulated form hereunder:

5. The appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal.

IV. Submissions of learned counsels for the parties:

6. Sri V. K. Singh Srinet, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the learned tribunal erred in law by failing to correctly compute the compensation. The claimants were entitled to a higher amount.

7. Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal was just and lawful in the facts and circumstances of the case.

V. Issue for Consideration:

8. After advancing their arguments, learned counsels for the respective parties agree that the factum of the accident is not disputed and only the following question falls for consideration in this appeal:

Whether the learned tribunal while determining the compensation lawfully computed the amounts under these heads: income, application of multiplier, deduction, future prospects, conventional heads and interest? If no, what is the lawful entitlement of the appellant?

VI. Issue of salary of the deceased:

9. The learned tribunal upon consideration of pleadings, facts and evidences in the records opined that the deceased was 16 years of age on the date of the accident. The accident was caused solely by the rash and negligent driving of the offending Truck.

10. The deceased was admittedly a student of Class 12. She did not have any independent source of income and her expenses were being borne by her father. Mother of the deceased also deposed before the learned tribunal that the deceased and her deceased brother contributed to household chores and agricultural activities which could be quantified at Rs. 400-500 per day.

11. The deposition of P.W. 1 Subhadra Devi was not shaken under cross examination. The learned trial court which had the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witness also found her to be worthy of credit.

12. Further, perusal of the testimony shows the respondent Insurance Company did not confront P.W. 1 on the said issues during cross examination. Though the above deposition by and large went unchalle