The minimum compensation provided under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, should be used as guidelines for determining compensation in motor accident cases.

R.K. Verma, J.

1. This is an appeal by the parents of the deceased minor Mukesh Kumar Moda, under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, in Claim Case No. 5 of 1984 dated 9.4.1986, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000/- in respect of the death of the deceased by a motor accident, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:

On 3.11.1983, the date of the incident, while the minor Mukesh Kumar Moda, aged 9 years, was witnessing the Dipawali lighting, standing in front of his house, at about 8 p.m., the driver, respondent No. 4, who was driving the truck bearing registration No. CPS 8764, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3, insurance company, drove the truck rashly and negligently with the result that the truck dashed against the deceased Mukesh Kumar, who was crushed to death on the spot.

3. On a claim petition having been filed by the appellant parents of the deceased minor Mukesh Kumar against the owner, driver and the insurance company, the learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case found that the deceased Mukesh Kumar died in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver, respondent No. 2 and held the driver, owner and the insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation in respect of death of the deceased minor Mukesh Kumar, son of the claimants-appellants and also awarded interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount of compensation as awarded, the claimants-appellants have filed this appeal against the award.

4. In this case, Rs. 15,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the claimants by an interim award dated 12.8.1985 on the principle of no fault liability under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the final award, which is under appeal, the learned Tribunal has determined the total compensation payable in respect of the death of the victim Mukesh Kumar as Rs. 20,000 out of which Rs. 15,000/- had already been paid under the interim award.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the deceased Mukesh Kumar, aged 9 years, was son of a cloth merchant and was a school-going boy studying in second standard and was a bright student as is stated in the evidence of the Headmistress of the school, Manjula Sharma, AW 2.

6. It has been submitted that the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal, in respect of the death of the deceased son of the claimants is quite inadequate in the circumstances of the case.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, namely, the owner of the offending truck and the insurance company has submitted that in respect of the death by motor accident of the deceased child the amount of compensation payable cannot be a large sum because of the uncertainties of life and prospects of career, necessarily involved in the case of a growing child. Learned counsel cited a decision of this court in M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal v. Yasin 1974 ACJ 358 (MP) and a decision of the Supreme Court in C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhi Kuttan Nair 1970 ACJ 110 (SC), in support of his submission that in respect of death of a child aged 12 years or 8 years a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was an adequate compensation since the principle for assessment of compensation is that the claimants must prove that they have lost a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage by the death of the deceased and not a mere speculative possibility of pecuniary benefit.

8. Jurisprudence of compensation for motor accident has since developed in the direction of no fault liability and the