1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL No. 549 OF 2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. .. APPELLANT VERSUS Walmik S/o Bapurao Ankushe & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri S.V. Kulkarni , Advocate for the appellant Shri V.V. Kabade, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Shri Shri Ghatge, Advocate h/f Shri B.N.Gadegaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3 CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 27th October, 2010. PER COURT : The notices were issued on 05th March, 2010 with an indication that the appeal would be heard finally, at the admission stage. 2. The present respondent Nos. 1 & 2 had filed claim petition under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation on account of death of their only son aged 3 years. The son of the present respondents Nos. 1 & 2 died on account of the accident which was caused due to 2 rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The truck gave dash to the said deceased i.e. son of present respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The Tribunal vide its Judgment and Award dated 4th September, 2009 awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of Rs. 7.5% per annum, from the date of application till realization. The Insurance Company has assailed the said Judgment and Award. The challenge is only to the extent of quantum of the compensation awarded, all other facts are not disputed. 3. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the compensation awarded is too exorbitant. The deceased was three years old child. The concept of notional income would not be applicable in the present case, as he had no capacity to earn. The future contingencies and uncertainties are also required to be taken into consideration, while assessing the payment of compensation amount. Shri Kulkarni relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of “Kaushlya Devi Vs. Karan Arora & others, 2007 SCW 3424”, and, states that 3 the Apex Court even in the case cited supra on the death of 14 year boy, has awarded compensation of Rs. One lakh, and so, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. Two lakh fifty thousand) for the death of three year old child is too exorbitant and excessive. 4. Per contra, shri Kabade, learned Counsel for the respondent / Ori. claimants supports the Judgment passed by the Tribunal on the ground that even in the Schedule, it is stated that even if there is no proof of income notional income of Rs. 15,000/- has to be considered. He further submitted that in the Schedule itself it is stated that if the age of the deceased is less than fifteen years, then, in that case, multiplier of 15 is to be applied. This would also apply to the child of three years, and he submits that no error has been committed by the Tribunal in passing the Award. 5. With the assistance of learned counsels, I have gone through the Judgment. 6. It is settled law that the Judgment of 4 the Apex Court cannot be read as euclid’s theoram. In case of “Kaushlya Devi Vs. Karan Arora & others”, cited supra, the Apex Court was dealing with a case where the accident had taken place in the year 1997. In the present case, the accident has taken place in the year 2008. The costs of living, inflation has increased multi fold. At the same time, the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act itself, lays down the guidelines to be applied while awarding compensation. Perusal of the Judgment of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the Schedule and multiplier, as detailed in the Schedule. Moreover, in the present case it has come in evidence that the deceased was the only son of the applicants. It has also come on record that the claimant No. 2 henceforth, would not be in a position to bear any child. This aspect also needs to be considered. The claimants have been rendered childless and in future also they would not have consortium of the child. 7. Taking into account all aforesaid 5 facts, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal. In the result, the First Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM* 549.10FA