1 fa662-01 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.662 OF 2001 Anant Sakharam Gawankar & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Director of Insurance, Maharashtra State Gruhnirman Bhavan (MHADA) & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. R. S. Deshpande for the appellants. Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for the respondent No.1 – State. Mr. A. R. S. Baxi for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Kailas Gurjal for respondent No.4. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : JULY 6, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned AGP appearing for the first respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents. This is an Appeal preferred by the claimants in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The claim is made by the appellants on account of death of their daughter Hemlata who died in an accident on 24th March, 1988. The finding of the Tribunal is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 2 fa662-01 respondent No.4 of a vehicle owned by second and third respondents which was insured with the first respondent. Compensation of Rs.70,000/- (inclusive of no fault liability) has been granted by the Tribunal together with interest at the rate of Rs.12% per annum. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the age of the deceased was 21 years and she was of marriageable age. He submitted that there is no reason to discard the case made out that the deceased was earning Rs.1,000/- per month. He submitted that compensation granted under all heads is inadequate. The learned AGP appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents stated that there is absolutely no evidence to show that any income was being earned by the deceased. They submitted that there is no evidence produced to prove the age of the deceased. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.70,000/- is reasonable. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. There is no Appeal or Cross-Objection preferred by any of the respondents. The Tribunal has accepted the case made out by the appellants that the deceased daughter of the appellants was of marriageable age and her age was about 21 years. Even 3 fa662-01 assuming that there was no evidence of the income earned by the deceased, as per the Second Schedule under the said Act of 1988 which was introduced in the year 1994, monthly income of non earning person was required to be notionally taken at Rs.15,000/- per annum. The case made out by the appellant was that in the year 1988, the income of the deceased was Rs.1,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has rightly held that there was no evidence of the employment of the deceased. Neither the employer was examined nor the salary certificate was produced on record. Even in case of death of a minor, the Apex Court has granted compensation in the range of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,75,000/- to the parents. In the facts of the case, compensation can be reasonably fixed at Rs.1,35,000/-. A sum of Rs.7,000/- will have to be granted on account of funeral expenses etc. Thus, the total compensation payable will be Rs.1,42,000/-. The enhanced amount will be carry interest at the rate of Rs.8% per annum. Hence, I pass the following order : :: O R D E R :: i. In addition to the compensation granted under the impugned Judgment and Award, the Appellants shall be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.72,000/- together with interest at the rate of Rs.8% per annum from the 4 fa662-01 date of the filing of the claim petition till its realization or deposit of the amount with the Tribunal. The original Opponent Nos.1 to 4 are granted time of four months from today to deposit the excess compensation amount. ii. Rest of the Award stands confirmed. iii. Appellant will be entitled to proportionate costs of the Appeal from Respondent No.3. (A.S.OKA, J.)