MACApp. 70/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. H. Rahman, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. S. Dutta, learne d counsel for the insurer-respondent No. 1. Heard also Mr. S. C. Biswas, learne d counsel for the owner-respondent No. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (here inafter referred to as ’the Act’), filed against the award, dated 06.08.2005, pa ssed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri, in MAC Case No. 60/2004, whereby the application, filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs for the death of his son, was dismissed, with cost, by the learned Tribunal. The claimant’s case, in brief, is thus: On 16.05.2003, at about 2 p.m., while the claimant’s son, Safiqul Haque (since deceased), accompanied by his mot her, was getting down from a Mini bus on D. K. Road, Modergola, Dhubri, he was k nocked down by a Canter Bus, bearing registration No. AS-17/3942, which came ras hly, causing grievous injuries to the said Safiqul Haque, and resulting into his death. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 15 years, he o wned and ran a grocery shop and his monthly earning was to the tune of Rs. 4,000 /- per month. The respondents herein contested the proceeding by filing their written statemen t, whereupon the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. As-17/3942 and the claimant sustained injuries due to the accident ? 2. Whether the offending vehicle was duly insured with M/s Oriental Insuran ce Co. Ltd.? 3. What shall be the just and proper compensation and by whom payable ? 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ? The learned Tribunal answered the issue No. 1 in affirmative and decided the sam e in favour of the claimant. This finding of the learned Tribunal is not under challenge. This apart, there is no reason for this Court to take a view differe nt from what the learned Tribunal has taken inasmuch as the claimant has clearly proved, with the help of evidence, given by his wife (i.e., mother of the said deceased) that her son, Safiqul Haque, had been knocked down by the offending b us resulting into his death. There is, therefore, no dispute that the accident took place due to the fault of the driver of the offending vehicle and, as a res ult thereof, the son of the claimant-appellant sustained injuries and died. It is also not in dispute that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the r espondent-opposite party No. 1 at the time of the said accident. However, why the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application was that the c laimant had asserted that his said son was aged about 15 years, that his said de ceased son owned and ran a grocery shop and that his said son’s earning was to t he tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month; whereas, the F.I.R., lodged in the case by the police, indicated the age of the deceased as 5 years and the post-mortem report , which indicated the name of the deceased as ’Md. Safiqul Haque’, revealed that the age of the deceased was found to be 5 years. Situated thus, while the learned Tribunal found that though the claimant had ass erted that his son was 15 years old, the age of the deceased was proved to be ba rely 5 years. It was, therefore, concluded by the learned Tribunal that claiman t was not entitled to any relief and the claim application was accordingly dismi ssed with cost. Considering the fact that the post-mortem report revealed that the age of the sa id deceased was 5 years, it was incumbent, on the part of the claimant, to prove , as had been contended by him, that his son was aged about 15 years at the time of the accident. The claimant did not examine the doctor, who had conducted th e post-mortem examination. Thus, the finding of the doctor, as reflected from t he post-mortem report, remained, and still remains undisputed. In such circumst ances, the learned Tribunal was justified in taking the view that the claimant c ould not adduce evidence to show that his son was not 5 years old, but 15 years old at the time of the said accident. It is, however, submitted, on behalf of the appellant, that even if the age of t he deceased was found to be 5 years old, the learned Tribunal could not have dis missed the application seeking compensation inasmuch as the provisions for compe nsation have been incorporated as a social service measure. The fact, that even if the deceased was 5 years old, the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay com pensation for the death of the said deceased, could not be disputed. It could a lso not be disputed that the offending vehicle stood insured with the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 was liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle for the sum, which the owner (i.e. respondent No. 2 herei n) is found liable to pay, as compensation, to the claimant-appellant. The question, therefore, remains as to what shall be the amount of compensation ? It is noteworthy, in this regard, that since the age of the deceased was 5 ye ars, his notional annual income can be assumed to be 15,000/- annually and, if t hat be so, the claimant-appellant ought to have been held to be entitled to rece ive half of the said earnings of the deceased, had the deceased been earning. T he age of the father is claimed to be 38 years and the age of the mother is clai med to be 33 years. Thus, the average age of the parents of the deceased being 35‰ years, the multiplier, for calculating the compensation, is 17. If half of the annual income of the deceased (i.e., Rs. 7,500/-) is multiplied by 17, the c ompensation works out to the tune of Rs. 1,27,500/-. An amount of Rs. 5,000/-, as burial expenses, is needed to be added to the said amount of Rs. 1,27,500/-, which enhances the total compensation amount to Rs. 1,32,500/-, which, in the c onsidered view of this Court, is the just and proper compensation to be paid to the claimant-appellant. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, it becomes clear that the claimant-appellant was entitled to, and ought to have been paid, a sum of Rs. 1,32,500/- as compensation. The refusal to award compensation to the claimant on the ground of the controversy about the age of the deceased was nothing but a serious error committed by the learned Tribunal. The impugned awa rd, therefore, needs interference. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, the impugned award is hereby set aside, the claimant-appellant is held entitled to receive, and is hereby dir ected to be paid, an amount of Rs. 1,32,000/-, as compensation, within six weeks from to-day with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of making o f the claim application until payment of entire awarded amount. With the above observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of. The parties are left to bear their respective costs. Send back the LCR.