IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 512 of 2008 Jamuna Prasad and another ...Appellants Versus Baljeet Singh and others …Respondents Mr. Z.U. Siddiquie, Advocate for appellants Mr. M.K. Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. R.B. Agarwal, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: 10-07-2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 25.11.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/1st F.T.C., Haldwani, District Nainital, in M.A.C.C. No. 07 of 2007, Jamuna Prasad and another versus Baljeet Singh and others, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum, to the claimants. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.01.2007 at 11.30 a.m. when deceased-Ashok Kumar was going to his home, at Teenpani Bye pass, he was dashed by Truck bearing No. H.R.24B/2307 which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligent, as a result of which deceased received multiple injuries and died at the spot itself. It has been alleged that deceased was 21 years of age at time of his death and used to earn Rs.4,200/- per month by working as mechanic. Hence, the claimants 2 claimed a sum of Rs.7,71,200/- as compensation against the opposite parties. Opposite parties no. 1 and 3, owner and driver of offending vehicle, contested the claim petition by filing written statement and admitted the factum of accident, but they took the additional plea that alleged accident was caused due to negligence of deceased-Ashok Kumar himself. It has also been alleged that at the time of accident driver was having valid driving licence and vehicle was having all valid papers relating to it and vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 2. Opposite party no.2, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. filed its written statement and alleged that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed necessary issues in the claim petition. Partied led evidence in support of their case. The learned Tribunal having considered the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, against opposite party no. 2-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide impugned judgment and award dated 25.11.2008. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellants-claimants have 3 preferred the present appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation, before this Court. Heard Sri Z.U. Siddiquie, learned counsel for appellants, Sri M.K. Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Sri R.B. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 3. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Truck No. H.R.24B/2307 is concerned, that appears to be completely justified and I am also in agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. As far as liability of insurance company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants is concerned, the Tribunal recorded the finding that on the date of accident driver of offending vehicle was having valid driving licence and vehicle was valid all its valid papers and vehicle was insured with The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., therefore, the offending vehicle was not being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy and insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. I do not find any infirmity in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal and the same is hereby affirmed. So far as amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants is concerned, the Tribunal while deciding issue no. 3 has discussed this aspect. The Tribunal has taken into account the age of the 4 deceased at the time of accident as 14 years according to post mortem report. Therefore, the Tribunal keeping in view the age of the deceased has correctly assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum and selected the multiplier of ‘10’ , which appears to be justified and needs no interference. After multiplying the said amount with the multiplier of ‘10’ the total amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants has rightly been worked out to Rs.15,000 x 10=Rs.1,50,0000/-. Although I do not find any ground for enhancement of compensation on the said counts, but at the same time, I feel that the Tribunal should have awarded the compensation to the claimants under other different heads. The deceased in this case was the only son of the claimants and had been working as an Assistant in the shop of car mechanic. Although no accurate expectancy of life can be assessed in case of child death, but keeping in view the special factor of this case that deceased was the only son of the claimants, I think a special sum of Rs.25,000/- to the parents of the deceased should be awarded in this case. Apart of the aforesaid sum, the claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of shock due to death of only son as well as further a sum of Rs.10,000/- for deprivation of love and affection of the deceased. A further sum of Rs.2,000/- should also be awarded in favour of the claimants under the head of funeral expenses. Therefore, I am of the view that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,50,000 + 25,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.2,000=Rs.1,97,000/- as compensation, along 5 with interest as indicated in the impugned judgment and award. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 25.11.2008 is modified to the extent that appellants/claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- (Rupees one lac ninety seven thousand only) as compensation along with interest of 7% per annum as indicated in the impugned judgment and award (instead of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation as has been awarded by the Tribunal). (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 6