1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 184 OF 1997 1. Yadavrao Chandrao Mane, Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Chatari, Tq. Umerkhed, District Yeotmal. 2. Sow. Kalavati W/o Yadavrao Mane, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Chatari, Tq. Umerkhed, District Yeotmal. 3. Rajesh Yadavrao Mane, Age : 15 Years, Occu. : Student, R/o Charati, Minor U/g of applicant No. 1 R/o Chatari, Tq. Umerkhed, District Yeotmal. 4. Sanjay Yadavrao Mane, Age : 12 Years, Occu. : Student, R/o Charati, Minor U/g of applicant No. 1 R/o Chatari, Tq. Umerkhed, District Yeotmal. .. Appellant (Orig. Claimants) Versus 1. Maharashtra State Road Trnasport, Corporation, Bombay, Through 2 Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Nanded. 2. Sk. Nazir Sk. Imam, Age : 25 Years, Occu. : Driver, R/o Hadgaon, Tq. Hadgaon, District Nanded. 3. Sonaji Ghansham Ghunnar, Age : 25 Years, Occu. : Conductor, R/o Hadgaon, Tq. Hadgaon, District Nanded. .. Respondents (Resp. Opponents) Shri B. N. Patil, Advocate for Appellants. The Respondents served - absent. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2010. JUDGMENT : . Heard learned counsel Mr. Patil for appellants. Though the respondents were served, none of them appeared when the matter was called out for final hearing. In this appeal appellants/original claimants challenge the judgment and award dated 18th March, 1994, passed by the District Judge as an Ex- Officio Member of MACT, Nanded, in M.A.C.P. No. 92 of 1988. It is the contention of appellants that the Tribunal should have 3 awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-, whereas the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 90,000/- inclusive of no fault liability together with the interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the date of application till realization. 2. Few facts of the matter are as under : The son of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 Suresh died in an accident on 05th May, 1988. It is the case of appellants that their son was coming to Tamsa from Hadgaon in a S. T. bus on 05th May, 1988. The accident took place near village Dorli, Tq. Hadgaon. The accident took place due to negligence of the bus driver. In the said accident the deceased Suresh sustained several injuries and was brought to the hospital at Nanded and thereafter he was shifted to Aurangabad. He was in hospital for about three months and ultimately died in J. J. Hospital at Mumbai. The deceased was studying in second year of diploma in animal husbandry. The diploma course in animal husbandry was of four years. At the time of death his age was 19 years. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that the deceased was brilliant student. In Ist year he secured I Class grade. He submits that after completion of diploma in 4 animal husbandry would have got good job. Therefore, appellants claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that, though the appellants produced on record the relevant documentary evidence to show that the deceased was briliant student and he would have secured good employment after completion of diploma in animal husbandry, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 90,000/- towards compensation. He further submits that at the time of awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 90,000/- the Tribunal has not considered the multiplier, the medical expenses incurred by the appellants, etc. He submits that, the Tribunal relying on judgments in the matter of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Shaikh Ashabi, 1993 (2) TAC 160, Chinta Thirupahai V. E. Bhadriah, 1993 (2) TAC 419, Somnath Vs. V. Mohanlal, 1993 TAC 484, awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs. 90,000/- only. He submits that Tribunal should have awarded compensation considering the multiplier. As on the date of accident he was just 19 years. 5. As none appeared on behalf of respondents, when the matter called out and as the present appeal is preferred by 5 original claimants for enhancement of compensation, it is not necessary to go into all other issues. 6. I have gone through the record and proceedings of the present case. On behalf of appellants only appellant No. 1 Yadavrao father of deceased entered into witness box. In his evidence he has stated that his son would have employed as Livestock Supervisor in Dairy office and would have received Rs. 2,000/- per month and, therefore, he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. He further stated in his evidence that, his son was briliant and he secured First Class in Ist year. Except these two things, he has not stated anything and or produced any documentary evidence to show that his son received any campus offer for employment. Not only that though in the claim petition appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards the medical expenses, not a single documentary evidence is produced by appellants on record. 7. It is to be noted that, in the present case the deceased was student, when the accident took place. Therefore, to calculate a compensation in respect of student is difficult. It is correct that at the time of awarding compensation to the non earning person 6 some guess work is necessary. The Apex Court in the matter of C. K. S. Iyer v. T. K. Nair reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court Page 376 made the following observations : "There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of the human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations but the amount recoverable depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. The life expectancy of the deceased or of the beneficiaries whichever is shorter is an important factor. Since the elements which go to make up the value of the life of the deceased to the designated beneficiaries are necessarily personal to each case, in the very nature of things, there can be no exact or uniform rule for measuring the value of human life. In assessing damges, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. As a general rule parents are entitled to recover the present cash value of the prospective service of the deceased minor child. In addition they may receive compensation for loss of pecuniary benefits reasonably to be expected after the child attains majority." 8. In the present case, though the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the multiplier for fixing the compensation payable to 7 appellants, it is not possible to do so because the deceased was studying and he was not earning anything for the purpose of determining the compensation on the basis of multiplier. At least some evidence is required on record about earning of deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal relying on above mentioned judgments done some guess work and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 90,000/-. As held by Apex Court in the matter of C. K. S. Iyer v. T. K. Nair for determining a compensation in respect of non earning person/child could have to do some guess work and same is done by the Tribunal. Considering the reasoning given by the Tribunal in para 8, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 9. The next submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants that, Tribunal has not awarded single payee towards the medical expenses incurred by the appellants. It is to be noted that, the appellant No. 1 entered into witness box. His evidence is recorded at Exhibit 42. I have gone through the same carefully. In the evidence of appellant No. 1, he nowhere stated about the expenses incurred by them. For want of evidence on record, the Tribunal rightly not considered the claim of appellants towards medical expenses. 8 10. In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The first appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. [K. K. TATED, J.] bsb/Nov. 10