[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 386/1998 RAJENDRA KUMAR PARNAMI & ORS. Vs. JAGDISH DUA & ANR. Date: 13.03.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Sandeep Mathur for the claimants-appellants. Mr. Ram Singh for the respondents. **** The claimants-appellants have filed the instant civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for enhancement of the Award dated 29.01.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in MAC No. 210/1993, whereby a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was the only son of the claimants, who was about 17 years of age at the time of death and was the only legal heir to inherent the business run by the claimants in the name and style of 'Parnami Agarbatti'. Thus, the Tribunal has seriously erred in not considering the age and future prospects of the deceased and awarded the compensation to the tune of only Rs. 2,00,000/-, which cannot said to be just and reasonable and required to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellants, in [2] support of his submissions, placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Grewal and another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and others, reported in 2001 A.C.J. 1719, wherein the deceased boys in age group of 10-12, students of IV to VI classes- Claimants:parents- Students belonged to upper strata of society and they were studying in an affluent school- Death by drowning in river where they had gone for picnic, due to negligence of their teachers- High Court awarded Rs. 5,00,000 to parents of each boy- Award upheld. Similarly in the case of Lata Wadhwa and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2001 A.C.J. 1735, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that “Quantum- Fatal accident- Principles of assessment- Infant- Whether a mere speculative possibility of benefit is sufficient for the parents to be entitled to compensation for the death of an infant- Held: no; parents have to establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived”. In this case it has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that “Quantum- Fatal accident- Deceased children aged 10 to 15, students of classes VI to X- Death due to fire in pandal- Contribution assessed at Rs. 24,000 p.a. Adopted multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs. 3,60,000 plus [3] conventional amount of Rs. 50,000 for each child; total Rs. 4,10,000”. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that here in the instant case also, the deceased was of about 17 years of age and the age of the father of deceased was 46 years and the mother was of 43 years and the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to the present case, therefore, the compensation awarded to the appellants by the Tribunal cannot said to be reasonable and required to be enhanced. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has considered each and every aspect and has passed just and reasonable award looking to the age and future prospects etc. of the deceased and the same requires no interference. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the impugned Award dated 29.01.98 passed by the Tribunal as well as the judgments referred before this Court and the record of the case. It is not disputed that the parents of the deceased are running the business of manufacturing of 'Agarbatti' in the name and style of 'Parnami Agarbatti' and it is also not disputed that the deceased was the only son of the parents/claimants and reasonable expectation to take over the business [4] of the parents was there and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa and others (Supra) has held that no parents have to establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived, and in the instant case reasonable expectation to take over the business of the parents. Therefore, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, age of the deceased and the age of his parents, the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants-appellants by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- cannot said to be just and reasonable. Hence, without discussing each and every head, the lump sum compensation is enhanced from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/- and the respondent Insurance Company is directed to make the payment of enhanced compensation amount to the appellants within a period of two months, failing which the Insurance Company will have to make the payment of the enhanced amount with interest @ 6% p.a. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned Award dated 29.01.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the present civil misc. appeal stands disposed of. Record be sent back. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/ (Hearing)