1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 411 of 1996 SMT. AVVAL KANWAR & ANR. V/S BABU LAL & ORS. Mr. DEEPAK MENARIA for Mr. PRADEEP SHAH, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. MANOJ BHANDARI, for the respondents Date of Order : 18.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu dt. 22.5.1996 passed in Claim Petition No. 34/95 awarding a sum of Rs. 70,000/- for compensation on account of death of Sushila a minor girl aged 17 years. Since the appeal is only for enhancement, and there are no corss-objections, I need not go into the other aspects of negligence, or liability of Insurance Company etc., and would straight-way come to the question of quantum only. The learned Tribunal while deciding issue no.2 has 2 considered the aspects that the deceased was 17 years of age, and the claimants are parents, she was the only issue but it has been found that she was a non earning member as she was a student. The judgment cited in Bantu Vs. Annama reported in 1995 ACJ-1158 was distinguished, and an all told sum of Rs. 60,000/- has been awarded for mental pain and agony, and Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded for expenses incurred in performance of last rites. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Manju Devi Vs. Musafir Paswan reported in 2005 ACJ-99, and contends that in such circumstances, in case of a deceased being non- earning member notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per month is to be adopted, and by employing multiplier of 15 a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- should be awarded, and therefore, it is prayed that the amount awarded is required to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the insurer invited my attention to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender reported in ACTC2007(1)-308. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record, and the case law. First of all I may deal with the case law cited. 3 In Satender's case also the deceased was non-earning child, and while referring to various English judgments, and one earlier judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur reported in 2003(7) SCC-484 it was found that in case of death of an infant there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child's life time. But this will not necessarily bar the parent's claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim provided that the parents' establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. It is significant to note that in both the cases of Satender (supra) and Musafir Paswan (supra) the deceased was a boy. I may make it clear that I should not be understood to mean to be suffering from any gender bias, or to be trying any distinction between the deceased being male and female. The question is being examined on the aspect of the parameters considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Satender's case, about reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefits if the child had lived. A look at the claim petition shows that there in a positive averment was made by the claimants by pleading that she was taking part in domestic work, and those 4 services did not value anything less than Rs. 2000/- per month, and thus a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was claimed under that head. As against this a look at the evidence of the three witnesses examined on the side of the claimants would show that none of them have deposed anything in this regard. It is also significant to note that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- has been claimed on account of deceased being brilliant child, and would have glorified the names of the parents in which regard again there is no evidence whatever. If considered from that stand point, on going through the record, it transpires that none of the claimants' witnesses have deposed anything about any prospective income likely to be derived by them from the deceased even in future had the deceased survived. Thus, no pecuniary loss is said to have been suffered by the claimants. In such circumstances, when the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- on account of loss of expectation of life suffered by the claimants by suffering mental pain, and agony on account of the death of the deceased, it cannot be said to be requiring any interference in appellate jurisdiction. So far as the amount claimed under other heads is concerned, at best an all told sum of Rs. 20,000/- may be added. 5 Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, and the compensation awarded is enhanced from Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 90,000/-. The other conditions shall be maintained. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/