IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA NO.241 OF 2003 1. (A) SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE RAGHUNATH PRASAD SINHA 2. (B) RANA PRASAD SINHA, SON OF LATE RAGHUNATH PRASAD SINHA 3. FULENA MANHI, SON OF JHALKU MANJHI, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BAZIDPUR, POLICE STATION CHAPARA MUFASIL, DISTRICT CHAPRA (SARAN) VERSUS 1. (A) SHAMBHU PRASAD SINHA, SON OF LATE RAGHU NATH PRASAD SINHA, STATION MASTER, BHAGWAN BAZAR STATION, CHAPRA, DISTRICT SARAN (B) RANA PRASAD SINHA, SON OF LATE RAGHU NATH PRASAD SINHA, C/O SHAMBHU PRASAD SINHA, STATION MASTER, BHAGWAN BAZAR STATION, CHAPRA, DISTRICT SARAN 2. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SUDERSHAN BUILDING, MUNICIPALITY CHOWK, P.O. & P.S. CHAPRA TOWN, DISTRICT CHAPRA (SARAN) ********** FOR THE APPELLANTS :- MR. MUKESH PRASAD SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS 1 :- MR. NADIN SERAJ, ADVOCATE MR. SHAILESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 2 :- MR. DURGESH KUMAR SINGH,ADVOCATE ************** 11 05.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award passed by 7th Additional District Judge -cum- Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Saran at Chapra in Claim Case No. 22 of 1997 by which the court below has awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum. The facts regarding the occurrence and the 2 accident resulting in the death of Raj Kumar Manjhi is not disputed by the respondents appearing in this appeal. The only question which has been challenged in this case is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The grounds in the memo of appeal indicates that the claimants have raised the issue that the lump sum amount cannot be awarded in this case, rather, the court ought to have applied the multiplier provided under the Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act in order to determine the amount of compensation. Another fact which may be noted is that the claimants have already withdrawn the award amount granted to them before the hearing of this appeal under Order 41 rule 11 of the C.P.C. Considering the issues raised on behalf of the appellants, the question is what would be the proper amount of compensation to be awarded in a case of death as a result of an accident when the deceased is a child? The evidence reveals that Raj Kumar Manjhi was playing at his door in the village when he was hit by a jeep. It appears that the boy was between 10-12 years of age and was a student of Class IV. In cases such as the one before this court, the 3 Supreme court has taken a view that although death and loss of life cannot be compensated in terms of monetary benefits, it becomes difficult for a court to decide the amount of compensation which ought to be paid in cases of accident where the person concerned is a child and has no income. In the present case, there is no evidence with respect to the income of the parents or their social status except to say that the deceased was a student of Class-IV. On going through several decisions of the Supreme Court such as Oriental Insurance Corporation Limited vs. Syed Ibrahim reported in 2007 ACJ 2816 (SC) and the judgment in the case of Late Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC) and in the case of Manju Devi vs. Musafir Paswan, reported in 2005 ACJ 99 (SC), the principles that can be culled out or which should be taken into consideration is the age of the child, the future prospects of the child, the age of the parents and the income of the parents. In a case where these issues have not been raised and discussed such as the present case, then it becomes difficult for this Court to decide as to what should be the just and proper compensation. 4 However, taking into account all the judgments cited above, it would appear that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is less than the standard which has really been fixed. Standard varies from grant of notional income and to a lump sum payable to the claimants between a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to 1,50,000/-. In the present case, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 60,000/- with interest of 9 per cent per annum. The said compensation has already been withdrawn by the claimants. Considering all the facts, this Court finds that claimants would be entitled to a payment of award of Rs. 1,00,000/- as well as Rs. 25,000/- which is the usual amount added as was done in the case of Lata Wadhwa. While making payment, the Insurance Company will deduct Rs. 60,000/- already paid by it from the total compensation amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- . On the remaining amount, the interest of 9 per cent per annum would accrue to the claimants from the date of filing of this claim till the date of actual payment. Anand/haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )