For the purpose of calculating compensation for the death of a child, the notional income should be based on the minimum wages of a skilled worker in the concerned State, augmented by future prospects and appropriate multipliers.

*****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. The aforesaid appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 1.4.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short “Tribunal”) in the petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation on account of death of their daughter – Sonia aged 12 years in a motor vehicular accident due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1-Angrez Singh, while driving the offending Three Wheeler (Auto Rickshaw) No.HR-45-5406 (hereinafter referred to as `offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by learned Tribunal:-

“1. Whether the accident was caused by Respondent No.1 while driving three-wheeler No.HR-45-5406 rashly and negligently resulting into causing the death of Miss Sonia as alleged?OPPs

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any compensation amount, if so how much and from whom? OPPs

3. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file the petition?OPR

4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties?OPR

5. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable?OPRs

6. Whether Respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the three-wheeler at the time of accident? If so to what effect?OPR3.

7. Relief.”

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation for the death of Sonia along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving offending vehicle, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award, vide which compensation has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be set aside and enhanced amount of compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel further contended that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side. Future prospects have also not been added to the monthly income of the deceased, contrary to the settled provisions of law. No appropriate compensation has been awarded under the conventional heads, i.e. loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses and he prayed that compensation be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon 2025 ACJ 1624 titled Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha and others , 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corpor