FAO No. 2021 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2021 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.04.2010 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ....Appellant Versus Smt. Sukhdeep Kaur and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the appellant. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) This appeal, by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, is directed against the award dated 11.1.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, allowing the claim petition filed by claimant/respondent No.1, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Claimant/respondent No.1 sought compensation on account of death of Harsh Deep, who was aged about three years, in a motor vehicular accident on 19.5.2008. It was the pleaded case of the claimant/respondent No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No. UP21L-9850 by respondent No.2 herein, in which Harsh Deep died. FIR regarding the accident was also registered against respondent No.2. The defence raised was, that the accident had not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. The learned tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, recorded a FAO No. 2021 of 2010 (O&M) -2- positive finding, that the accident took place on 19.5.2008 due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.UP21L- 9850 by respondent No.2, which resulted in death of Harsh Deep. On issue No.2, keeping in view the fact that deceased was minor child of only three years, therefore, lump sum amount of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees two lac and twenty five thousand only) was granted along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment along with costs of Rs.3,300/- (Rupees three thousand and three hundred only). Mr. Sandeep Kotla, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has challenged the award merely on the question of quantum of the compensation by contending, that the minor child of three years was not earning any amount and, therefore, no dependency could be assessed for granting compensation to the parents of the deceased child. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is well settled law, that in case of death of minor, an assessment can be made keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The deceased was the only son of the parents and, therefore, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded was on the higher side so as to interfere with the award in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) April 19, 2010 Judge R.S.