IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O NO. 5346 OF 2006 DECIDED ON : 10.11.2008 Smt. Nirmala Devi and another ...Appellants versus Umed Singh alias Lalu and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate, for the respondents. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the award dated 06.06.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar, awarding compensation of Rs.80,000/- on account of death of their 11 years old minor son in a motor vehicular accident. The appellants are parents of Chetan Saini, who was born on 15.11.1994 and was about 11 years old. Chetan Saini and his brother were standing near an electric pole on the right side and were waiting to cross the road on 16.04.2005 at about 9:30 p.m. Meanwhile, the first respondent came driving the tractor bearing registration No. HR-13A-4546 allegedly in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and hit Chetan Saini, who suffered multiple and grevious injuries. While the boy was being taken to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, New Delhi, he died on the way. The deceased child was a student of III rd standard. Alleging that they have suffered mental pain, agony, distress and loss of future income of their deceased minor son, the appellants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs. The Tribunal vide its award under appeal, took note of the fact that the appellants had high expectations from their young child and has awarded them a lump-sum compensation of Rs.80,000/- which the respondents were directed to pay jointly and severally by 20.07.2006, failing which they were also held liable to pay interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation, that the claimants-appellants are before this Court. The only question raised and requires determination is : “As to whether compensation of Rs.80,000/- assessed by the Tribunal is 'just' and 'fair' ?” Relying upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of “Gurmeet Kaur and five others vs. Punjab Roadways Ferozepur and others” 2006 (3)PLR 858, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal ought to have fixed notional income of the minor child and thereafter, assessed the compensation for loss of such notional income, besides separately compensating the appellants for the mental pain and sufferings for the loss of company of their child. In Gurmeet Kaur's case (supra), the learned Single Judge awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- for the loss of notional income and Rs.50,000/- for mental pain, sufferings and for the loss of company of the child who was 15 years old at the time of accidental death. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that having regard to the tender age of the child, neither his income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in income or chances of advancement in career are capable of determination on estimated basis. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of, “Kaushlya Devi vs. Karan Arora and others” AIR 2007 S.C. 1912, where compensation of Rs.One lac awarded by the Tribunal to the mother of her 14 years old deceased child was held to be just and proper, warranting no interference. As held by their Lordship Supreme Court in Kaushalya Devi's case (supra), there can be no golden Rule to apply for measuring the value of human life. It would always depend upon the facts together with all the attending circumstances of a particular case as to what would be the just, fair and adequate compensation to be awarded to the claimants. After taking notice of the fact that the future of a child is uncertain and at the time of death, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn due to which the question of assessment of compensation becomes more difficult, their Lordship in Kaushalya Devi's case (supra) held as follows : “In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation”. The appellant-parents are agriculturists. Their deceased child was about 11 years old and was a student of IIIrd standard. The academic pursuits of the child were still uncertain and so was the prospect of his future income. For these reasons only, that the Tribunal also did a guess work and has awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.80,000/-. It has come on record that the appellants have another son which does suggest that at an appropriate stage when the deceased child was expected to shoulder the responsibilities, the appellants would not have solely depended on him only. In the totality of circumstances and considering the fact that the appellants incurred some expenditure in taking their injured child to the hospital or on his last rites, coupled with the loss of company and the mental agony suffered by them, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be suitably enhanced. Accordingly, I award the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. In addition, the appellants shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization thereof. NOVEMBER 10, 2008 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE