IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.414 of 2008 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR--Appellants. Versus MOTI RAM & ORS. -----Respondents. For the appellants: Sri Ashok Priyadarshi,Advocate. For the respondents: Sri Pravin Kumar Singh, Advocates. ORDER 7 02.07.2010 This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Judgment dated 25.3.2008 and Award dated 10.4.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge – cum – Fast Track Court- 7th , Munger, in M.V. Claim Case No.52/04 whereby compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- was directed to be paid by the appellant after deducting Rs.50,000/- paid as interim compensation with interest at the rate of 9%. 2. The parents of the deceased filed the claim case claiming compensation on the ground of death of their minor son, namely, Law Kumar, in motor accident. It was alleged that on 11.5.2004 at about 2.30 P.M. a Tata Maxi bearing Registration No.BR 52 – 5659 which was being driven rashly and negligently dashed him as a result of which he died in course of treatment. He was aged about 15 years. 3. The learned court below by the impugned order taking into account the age of the deceased applied the multiplier of 15 and assessed the compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant raised only one ground that in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble 2 Supreme Court reported in 2003 (8) SCC 731 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay versus Laxman Iyar and another A.I.R. 2006 S.C.W. (2) 1116; Vijay Kumar Dugar versus Vidyadhar Dutta, the Tribunal was required to consider the age of the parents while computing the just compensation because the claimants are the parents but contrary to the settled principles of law the learned Tribunal has taken into account the age of the deceased who died unmarried. 5. On the contrary the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and Schedule-II of the M.V. Act is only directory and only a guideline. 6. In the Municipal Corporation case (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellant it appears that the deceased was unmarried and aged about 18 years. In the present case at our hand also the deceased was aged about 15 years. In that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the compensation at Rs.3,60000/-. In that case also the deceased was not earning and in the present case also the deceased was not earning. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also the parents were the claimants like this case. 7. In the case of Vijay Kumar Dugar (supra) it appears that the deceased was aged about 25 years and he was earning. The deceased was not a minor. The learned Tribunal in that case accepted his monthly income as Rs.4000/-. The 3 Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the Judgment of the Tribunal. 8. From the above facts and circumstances it appears that the case of Municipal Corporation is fully applicable in the present case. In that case Rs.3,60000/- was granted as compensation to the parents for the death of their son who was aged about 18 years having no source of income. The only difference in this case is the age of the deceased who was aged about 15 years. It may be mentioned that the Schedule-II of the M.V.Act is only a guideline and the courts are required to calculate the just compensation after considering the various facts. In the present case the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,53,000/- for the death of 15 years son of the claimants who are old. In my opinion, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that it is not a just compensation rather it is exorbitant. I am, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is exorbitant. As stated above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted Rs.3,60,000/- in the aforesaid case, therefore, on the technical ground that Schedule –II of the Motor Vehicle Act should be followed strictly as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. The court is required to assess the just compensation. 9. In view of my above finding that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just compensation in the present case, I am not inclined to interfere 4 with the impugned Judgment and Award only on the technical grounds. 10. In the result, this Misc. appeal is dismissed. 11. The statutory amount deposited by the appellants be transmitted to the court below so that it may be paid to the claimants. Anilkr.sinha (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)