THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A. No.1469 of 2005 ORDER: The appellants-claimants filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the judgment dated 11.03.2005 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge’s Court, Kadapa, in M.V.O.P.No.740 of 2002, whereby a compensation of Rs.71,000/- was awarded for the death of Thangi Dilip (for short ‘the deceased boy’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2002, when the deceased boy, who was studying U.K.G. in Vishnu Vidya Mandir, got down the auto from his school on the extreme left side of the road margin and the first appellant was about to pick the boy up, the offending lorry bearing No.AP 02 T 8060 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner from Rayachoti side and hit the deceased boy resulting in his death. Therefore, the parents of the deceased boy filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of the deceased boy. 3. The first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent- Insurance Corporation filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. “1. Whether the deceased by name Thangi Dilip died in Motor Vehicle accident on 28.06.2002 due to rash and negligent driving of R.1’s lorry bearing No.AP02-T-8060 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 5. To prove their claim, the claimants examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 i.e., copies of F.I.R. in Crime No.85 of 2002, inquest report, postmortem report and charge sheet. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of owner of the lorry or the insurance company. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, observed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and because of the accident only, the deceased boy died and therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation. Since the deceased was aged 5 years old studying U.K.G. and his parents are aged 34 and 27 years, who got the chance of begetting children, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.55,000/- besides Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.500/- towards transport charges, in all Rs.71,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. Both owner and insurance company were made jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding meager compensation of Rs.71,000/- without estimating the future pecuniary benefits which the parents could be said to have been lost by the death of the deceased boy; that the Apex Court in catena of cases of death of young children held that the reasonable compensation could be Rs.2,00,000/- and that the Tribunal erred in not assessing the income of the deceased and in not applying multiplier method. 8 . On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to sustain the order of the Tribunal. 9. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that though the Tribunal considered all the aspects in a detailed and proper manner, since the deceased boy was aged 5 years, the Tribunal ought to have considered the age of mother for calculating the future earnings and dependency. As the mother of the deceased boy was aged 27 years at the time of the accident, the proper multiplier would be ‘16’. Considering the circumstances, notional income at Rs.15,000/- per month would be appropriate and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure, income at Rs.10,000/- per month would be appropriate for calculating the loss of future earnings and dependency. Accordingly, the loss of future earnings and dependency comes to Rs.1,16,000/- (16 X 10,000) and this Court grants further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the claimants/appellants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,23,000/-. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the second respondent - insurance company, in view of judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], interest awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced from 9% to 7% per annum. In all other respects, the judgment of the Tribunal shall remain intact. 10. In the result, the C.M.A. is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.71,000/- to Rs.1,23,000/-(10,000 X 16 + 5,000 + 2,000) which shall carry interest @7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 17th September, 2010 VA [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(3) Supreme Today 487