IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A. O. No. 108/2007 Jahid Ahmad and others ….. Appellants. Versus Dara Singh and others .. Respondents. Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Devesh Bishnoi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. Mr. Manish Dalakoti, holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Counsel for respondent No.3. Dated: 2-12-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 20-1-2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in MACP No. 255 of 2004, Jahid Hussain and another Vs. Dara Singh and another. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 8-10-2004 Km. Nagma was going to her school and when she reached near the tea-shop of Munna Lal situated at Naveen Junior High School, Tractor No. U.P. 22-C-6124 came there at a high speed and climbed it over km. Nagma, who succumbed to the injuries in way to Hospital. The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged at Police Station Kashipur. The deceased was 7 years of age. The claimants filed petition for compensation in lieu of death of Km. Nagma. 3- The opposite party owner filed written statement and alleged that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligence of tractor driver. It was also alleged that the driver was possessing valid driving license and the tractor in question was insured with United India Insurance Company. 2 4- The opposite party/ United India Insurance Company also contested the petition and alleged that driver of the offending tractor was not having valid driving license and the tractor was insured only for agricultural work. 5- The Tribunal on the pleading of parties framed issues in the petition. Thereafter parties adduced evidence in support of their case. The tribunal after considering the material on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 52,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition to be paid by United India Insurance Company. The tribunal also gave recovery right to the insurer against the owner of the tractor in question. 6- Feeling aggrieved the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement. 7- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the claimant/appellants has submitted that the tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation and the same should be enhanced. 9- In order to prove the accident, the claimants have adduced P.W.2, Noor Ahmad. This witness in his affidavit has given eyewitness account of the accident and has deposed that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the tractor No. U.P. 22-C-6124. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence to controvert the evidence adduced by the 3 claimants. The insurance company also took the plea that the driver of the tractor was not possessing valid driving licence. D.W.1, Bal Kishan Thakur is the clerk posted in Registration Office, from where the driving licence of the driver, is said to have been issued. This witness has categorically stated that the driving license in question has not been issued from his office and it is a fake driving license. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal has given recoverable right to the insurance company against the owner of the offending tractor. I do not find any illegality in the aforesaid findings recorded by the tribunal. 10- So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it appears from the record that the age of deceased was 7 years at the time of death and she was a school going child. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased plus Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In case of child death, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Satender and others, reported in (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 96, has held that “In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation.” 4 11- Therefore, in case, if the notional income of the deceased is taken into consideration as Rs.15,000/- per annum, then after deducting 1/3rd out of it the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.10,000/-. In the schedule given under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act a multiplier in the case of infant death is ‘15’ and if the multiplier of ‘15’ is adopted then the amount of compensation comes to Rs.10,000 x 15=Rs.1,50,000/. 12- As the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation, therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of funeral expenses shall not be payable to the claimants. 13- In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation, instead of Rs.52,000/-, as has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment as has been awarded by the Tribunal. The awarded amount of compensation shall be paid by the United India Insurance Company to the claimants and the recoverable right given to the insurance company by the learned tribunal against the owner of the offending tractor shall remain intact. 14- The apportionment of the awarded amount among both the claimants shall be in equal share, as has been directed by the tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 5