IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 546 of 2007 Jafer & another … Appellants Vs S.S.P., Udham Singh Nagar & others … Respondents Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Manish Dalakoti, learned counsel for the appellants Sri K.C. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants/appellants against the judgment and award dated 24.12.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 210 of 1997, Jafar & another Vs S.S.P., Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.06.1997 at about 05:45 p.m., Sagir @ Shakir (deceased) was going to his house situated in Manpur, Uttar Pradesh on the extreme left side of the road, suddenly, a truck bearing registration No. UP04A/0054 came from behind in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased, due to which, the truck crushed the stomach of the deceased and he died at the spot. According to the claim petition, the deceased on the date of accident was 12 years of age and studying in VIIIth standard. The claimants are the parents of the deceased and filed the claim petition before the Tribunal concerned. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing joint written statement before the Tribunal alleging therein that the vehicle in question was being plied by opposite party No. 2 – Kewlanand, suddenly, the boy 2 (deceased) came in front of the vehicle and met with an accident. He was taken to the Haldwani Hospital, where he was declared dead by the doctors. It has also alleged that the driver of the vehicle in question was driven cautiously and slowly, due to negligence of the boy the accident took place. It has also alleged that the claimants are not dependent upon the deceased, therefore, they were not entitled for any compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till the actual date of payment vide judgment and order dated 24.12.1998. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Manish Dalakoti, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri K.C. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent and perused the record. 7. The counsel for the appellants has argued that the amount awarded in favour of the claimants is quite meager. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has not recorded any cogent and reliable finding while granting the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the claimants. He has further 3 stated that even if the schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act is to be considered, the amount of compensation would comes to Rs. 1,50,000/- in the case of child death. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the State appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the amount awarded in favour of the claimant is absolutely justified. He has also stated that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is against the provision of law. 9. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Tribunal has not recorded any reasonable and cogent finding in order to award the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. The accident in this case took place in the year 1997 and the law prevailing at that time for awarding the compensation would be in view of the schedule given in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is a case of child death and according to the schedule, the amount, in the case of child death is to be awarded to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- (10000 X 15), the Tribunal has not taken into account the other schedule given under Section 163A or any principle governing at par the adequate and just compensation. It is not disputed that it is a case of child death but even then the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the amount of compensation is to be awarded in favour of the claimants is just and proper. However, I am of the view that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation. 10. The interest awarded by the Tribunal does not appear to be logical. To my mind, the interest should be 6% 4 instead of 12% from the date of filing the claim petition, till the actual date of payment. 11. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum instead of 12% from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment, as has been awarded by the Tribunal. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 10.12.2008 ASWAL