1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.255/2000 (Abdul Zabbar & Another Versus Kulwant Singh & Others) Date of Order :: 17.11.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Vinay Mathur, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Intzaar Ali, counsel for the respondent no.2 Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellants have preferred this appeal for the enhancement of quantum of compensation. 2. An unfortunate accident took place on 31.5.1986 at about 11.30 AM on Nasirabad- Bhilwara road when the deceased child Shamim along-with her mother alighted from the bus at Bus Stand Jhadwasa. It is alleged that when she reached near the road, suddenly a truck bearing Registration No. CHW-7111 emerged at Jhadwasa Bus Stand from Nasirabad side, sans blowing any horn, which was being driven by its driver at a fast speed and crushed the deceased Shamim resulting into her death on the spot as her brain matter flushed from the skull. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has canvassed that the deceased Kumari Shamim was of the age of 4 years at the time of 2 accident. In the case of Smt. Malti & 52 Others Versus M.K. Vasu and 52 others, reported in WLC 2008 (1) page 589, this Court while placing reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Manju Devi & Another Versus Musafir Paswan and another {2005 (1) TAC 609} and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Versus Trilok Chandra reported in 1996 ACJ 831, held that the claimants of the victim child in the age group upto 5 years, shall be entitled to compensation to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence, in the light of this judgment, the appellant-claimant may also be held entitled to claim Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation according to law. The learned Tribunal has, without assigning any reason, arbitrarily, decreed a lumpsum amount of 70,000/- in favour of the claimants-appellants, which is not in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence, the amount of compensation may be enhanced and the impugned award may be modified. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned award and called the same to be just and proper and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. In case title Manju Devi and another 3 Vs. Musafir Paswan and another 2005(1) TAC 609, while determining compensation on account of death of a 13 years old child, the Supreme court considered the judgment delivered in case title U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Trilok Chandra reported in 1996 ACJ 831 and applied the multiplier of 15 as per II Schedule annexed with the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 taking notional income of Rs. 15,000/- being a non-earning person and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- observing as under: “In the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 : 1996 (2) TAC 286 (SC), it has been held by this Court that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation. It has been held that the multiplier method must be accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country. In view of this authority, it will have to be held that the award of compensation had to be made by the multiplier method. As set out in the Schedule Schedule to the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non- earning person, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- must be taken as the 4 income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 2,25,000.” 7. This Court in the case of Smt. Malti and 52 others (supra), while relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court held that the claimants of the victim child in the age group upto 5 years shall be entitled to compensation to a sum of 1,00,000/- rupee. In the instant appeal, the victim child, Kumari Shamim, is found to have been 4 years old at the time of death. Hence, I hold the claimants entitled to compensation to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the amount of compensation under the impugned award is ordered to be enhanced accordingly. 8. For these reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The amount of compensation under the award is raised from Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. The impugned award stands modified accordingly. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. DK/-