1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.3368/2007 Laxmi Narain & Anr. v/s Smt. Asharfi Devi & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 20th November,2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ritesh Jain, for the appellants. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of death of their un- married son Lakhan aged about 20 years who died in motor accident took place on 9.1.2006 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 27.4.2007 passed by the learned Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,95,000/- with interest @ 6% p. a. from the date of clam application till the date of payment, in their favour. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was a student of STC (School Training Certificate) which is clear from Ex 10 and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month from tuition but the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not accepting the monthly 2 income of the deceased and in assessing his income as Rs.2400/- per month only. He, therefore, contended that the monthly income of the deceased may be assessed properly and amount of compensation, may be enhanced accordingly. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned award, particularly; the finding of issue No.2 relating to quantum of compensation. So far as the age of the deceased and parents and the multiplier adopted in the case are concerned, the same have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. His grievance is only with regard to the assessment of monthly income of the deceased. AW 1 Savitri, mother of the deceased stated in her statement that the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- per month. AW 3 Babu Singh, brother-in-law of Jagdish who was uncle of deceased stated that he was paying Rs.1500/- per month to deceased for teaching his children. Admittedly, no document in support of any income of the deceased has been placed on record. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant himself that deceased was only the student of STC. So far as the statement of AW 1 Savitri is concerned, she was very much interested in getting the more amount of compensation being mother of the deceased and 3 one of the claimants in the claim application. Although the learned Tribunal has observed about AW 3 Babu Singh that he is also an interested witness but ultimately looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case and future prospects of the deceased, assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2400/- per month. 1/3rd was deducted on account of personal expenses and after applying multiplier of 15, assessed the compensation under the head of loss of income as Rs.2,88,000/-. Rs. 5,000/- has further been awarded for deprivation of love and affection and Rs.1,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- in total, has been awarded as compensation. From the finding of the learned Tribunal, it appears that the appellant was, in fact, non-earing member and as per Second Schedule the nominal annual income of Rs.15,000/- ought to have been assessed but in the present case, the learned Tribunal has already taken a liberal view by assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2400/- per month i.e. Rs.28,800/- per annum. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.s Satender and Ors. (2007 (1) TAC 11 (SC) has considered the question of assessment of compensation in the case of a child death and in para 9 of the same held as under : 4 “................................. .................................. determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non- earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manju Devi v/s Musafir Paswan (2005(1) TAC 609) awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- where the deceased was unmarried boy of 13 years of age. The Tribunal is required to pass an award u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be just and reasonable. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of assessment of monthly income of the deceased, cannot be said to be illegal. The amount of compensation of Rs.2,95,000/- awarded in the present case, appears to be just and reasonable and no interference in it, is called for. 5 In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (N.K. Jain),J. Chauhan/