S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under the impugned award, the parents/claimants have now come up in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation and modification of the award in question accordingly.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondent, and have carefully perused the record.

( 3 ) THE facts in brief shorn of details, and necessary for the disposal of this appeal, lie in a narrow compass. An application under Section 110-A (or S. 166) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by the appellants praying for compensation of an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-, on account of the death of their minor son, Monu aged about 10 years who had died as a result of the accident involving the offending vehicle, a tractor with trolley with registration No. M. B. H. 6832, in the evening of 10-5-1988.

( 4 ) MONU, the deceased was going along with his younger brother to purchase a kite in a narrow lane where he met with an accident and got crushed by the offending vehicle resulting in his death. His younger brother aged about 3 years was saved.

( 5 ) THE parents claimed that the deceased Monu was their eldest son who was a brilliant and a precocious child. Apart from Monu, the deceased minor child, the claimants had 5 daughters and a son but the parents had high expectations from Monu, and their future and the future of their other minor children was badly affected. It was claimed that in case Monu had not met with the accident, he would have lived for a long period and become an officer in the Indian Administrative Service which was the expectation of the parents. In that situation, he would have provided considerable monetary benefits to his parents and his brother and the sisters. This possibility had totally been blotted out. It was also claimed that the parents had suffered a great shock on account of the death of their minor son and this will leave them in trauma for the rest of their life.

( 6 ) OUT of the total amount of compensation claimed, the parents had sought for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards shock and mental agony and loss of companionship. Remaining Rs. 4,00,000/- was claimed representing the same to be the loss of income which the parents could have suffered out of the earnings of the deceased Monu during a period of about 35 years.

( 7 ) THE claimants had prayed for the award of interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

( 8 ) THE Tribunal taking into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record, determined the quantum of compensation to be Rs. 48,000/- only.

( 9 ) WHILE coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal assumed that the deceased Monu could have started his career as a Lower Division Clerk and earn an income of Rs. 1,000/- per month. At the relevant period, the Tribunal concluded that the age of the parents would have been 54 and 47 years. The notional contribution by the deceased towards his parents was taken to be Rs. 400/- per month and in this way the Tribunal determined the annual dependency to be Rs. 4,800/- and applying the multiplier of 10, came to the conclusion that the amount of compensation should be Rs. 48,000/ -.

( 10 ) THE relief in regard to the payment of interest as claimed was also granted which was made payable from the date of the application till the realization of the amount.

( 11 ) THIS appeal was initially valued at Rs. 4,50,000/- but later on the appellants moved an application reducing their claim to Rupees one hundred thousand only and prayed for amendment in the memorandum of appeal. This application was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide the order dated 8-1-1998, and the appeal is now valued at Rupees one hundred thousand only. In the application for amendment, the appellants have clearly indicated t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document