Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in M.C.O.P.No.5470 of 2013, dated 25.01.2019, the appellant/insurance company is before this Court with this appeal.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

http://www.judis.nic.in 2/21 C.M.A.No.1625 of 2020

3. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The appellant / insurance company contested the claim petition on the ground that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased and no negligence can be fixed on the driver of the lorry. At the time of the accident, the driver of the lorry does not possess a valid driving license and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. The appellant/insurance company has also claimed that the compensation claimed for the death of a 13 year old boy is speculative and highly excessive.

4. In order to prove the claim, the first respondent herein examined herself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and marked as many as thirteen documents as Exs.P1 to P13. On the side of the respondents therein, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

5. The Tribunal after considering the materials available on record came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and hence the respondents therein are liable to pay the compensation. So far as the quantum of compensation http://www.judis.nic.in 3/21 C.M.A.No.1625 of 2020 is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and the annual income at Rs.84,000/- p.a. The Tribunal added 40% towards future prospect and deducted 50% towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 18 arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.10,58,400/-. In respect of other conventional heads the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of love and affection; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Estate; thus, totalling a sum of Rs.11,69,000/- was awarded as compensation. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant / insurance company filed the present appeal.

6. Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company would contend that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased minor boy and without considering the evidence in its proper perspective, the Tribunal fixed the liability on the driver of the lorry. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the deceased was a school going boy aged about 13 year and without any reason whatsoever the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- and applying multiplier of 18 arrived at the loss of dependency at http://www.judis.nic.in 4/21 C.M.A.No.1625 of 2020 Rs.10,58,400/-. According to the learned counsel, the notional monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is highly excessive. In case of minors, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases awarded consolidated amount as compensation, and the Tribunal without assigning any reason fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased minor boy as Rs.7,000/- and arrived at the annual income as Rs.84,000/-. That apart, so far as applying of multiplier is concerned, law is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in cases of minors aged below 15 years, the maximum multiplier should be 15. However, the Tribunal wrongly fixed the multiplier at 18 and arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.10,58,400/-.

7. Per contra, Mr.A.A.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants would submit that the deceased is a bright student and a school going boy and he has a very great future. The respondents 1 and 2 / claimants are the parents of the deceased had lost their son. Considering the above circumstances, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income as Rs.7,000/-. The claimants who are only two in number, the Tribunal has deducted 1/2 towards his personal expenses. That apart, since the deceased was below the age of 15, as per the Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 multiplier 18 was applied by the Tribunal. After http://www.judis.nic.in 5/21 C.M.A.No.1625 of 2020 awarding correct compensation on conventional heads, the total compensation was fixed at Rs.11,69,000/-, which is not excessive, it is only a just and fair compensation and therefore there is no reason to interfere with the same.

8. I have considered the rival submissions.

9. The deceased was a 13 years old school going boy and he was earning nothing. However, as a school going boy he had great prospects of earning in future and there may not be any actual pecuniary benefit derived by his parents during his life time. However, it will not bar the parents from claiming for the prospective loss by the untimely death of the minor child. The parents are emotionally attached to the child and the loss will have devastating effect on the family and for the sufferings of loss of happiness, the parents should be necessarily compensated. Awarding compensation for the loss of life cannot be weighted in golden scales and the parents are entitled for a just compensation, and it cannot be neither a windfall nor a pittance. In R.K.Malik Vs. Kiran Pal reported in (2009) 14 SCC 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

http://www.judis.nic.in 7/21 C.M.A.No.1625 of 2020

10. For assessing the notional income of a child, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 has held that in case of death of a child, there is no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the life time of the child. However, the parents are entitled to claim for the prospective loss they suffered and that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit had the child lived and the loss of the child to the parents is irrecoupable and no amount of money can compensate them. Considering the facts of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in cases of children between the age group of 10-15 years, the annual contribution can be fixed at Rs.24,000/- and multiplier of 15 be applied. The relevant portion of the judgement is as follows:

11. The above judgement was followed in Kishan Gopal Vs. Lala reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244. In the said case, for the death of a 10 year old boy, the notional income was fixed at Rs.30,000/- p.a. and multiplier 15 was applied.

12. In yet another judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Satender reported in CDJ 2006 SC 953, has held that in case of death of minor children neither the income of the child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation. Hence , in that case , a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- was awarded for the death of a child aged about 9 years old.

13. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in CDJ 2020 SC 585 has confirmed the award passed by the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- for the death of a 12 year old boy. Further, in respect of future prospects, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that the judgement in R.K.Malik case http://www.judis.nic.in 10/21 C.M.A.No.1625 of 2020 (cited supra) does not considered Satender case (cited supra). The relevant paragraph of the said judgement is as follows:

14. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. R.Vimala reported in 2015 (2) TN MAC 490 (DB) for the death of a 9 year old boy fixed the notional monthly income as Rs.5,000/- and deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of http://www.judis.nic.in 11/21 C.M.A.No.1625 of 2020 Rs.8,92,000/-.

15. In the instant case, the deceased was a 13 year old school going boy and his parents are 30 and 50 years old at the time of the accident. It is also stated that the deceased is a very bright student and he is having a very good future. The Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- p.m. and arrived at the notional annual income at Rs.84,000/- and deducted 1/2 towards the personal expenses and applied multiplier of 18 and arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.10,58,400/-.

16. However, considering the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa case (cited supra) has fixed the notional annual income of the deceased between age group of 10-15 years at Rs.24,000/-. In that case the accident had taken place during the year 1989. Subsequently in Kishan Gopal case (cited supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court fixed the notional annual income at Rs.30,000/- for an accident which had taken place in the year 1992 for the death of a 10 year old minor boy. In the instant case, the accident had taken place in the year 2013 and considering the age of the deceased at 13 years and the age of the parents, this Court is of the view that fixing a sum of Rs.3,500/- as notional monthly income would be a just and http://www.judis.nic.in 12/21 C.M.A.No.1625 of 2020 fair, therefore, the notional annual income of the deceased would be Rs.42,000/-.

17. So far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, the Tribunal has deducted 1/2 towards personal expenses. For deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma case (cited supra) has considered the case of adult earning members, where they spent for their personal and living expenses to arrive at the contribution to the defendants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticing that it is difficult to arrive at the actual personal expenses of the deceased, in order to standardize the deduction for personal expenses, for a married person as 1/3, where dependent family members are between 2 to 3; 1/4 where dependent family members are between 4 to 6; 1/5 where dependent family members exceed 6. In case of a bachelor 50% of the monthly income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. In paragraphs 25, 26, 30 and 31 of the Sarla Verma case (cited supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

18. So far as minors are concerned, they are non earning members and there is no occasion for them to spend money towards the personal expenses and there cannot be any deduction towards their personal expenses. In Lata http://www.judis.nic.in 16/21 C.M.A.No.1625 of 2020 Wadhwa case ( cited supra) and Kishan Gopal case (cited supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court after fixing the notional monthly income of the minor applied the multiplier and taken the entire amount as the loss of dependency and no deduction was made for their personal expenses. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that there cannot be any deduction towards personal expenses from the notional income of deceased minors.

19. So far as applying multiplier, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 18. However, in the case of children below the age of 15 years, even though Sarla Verma case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not fix any multiplier. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65, has held that for children upto the age group of 15, the appropriate multiplier would be 15. The relevant portion of the said judgement is as follows:

20. In the said circumstances, the appropriate multiplier in case of a child aged 13 years would be 15. Hence, applying the above, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.6,30,000/- (Rs.3500x12x15). So far as love and affection the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- each to the respondents http://www.judis.nic.in 18/21 C.M.A.No.1625 of 2020 1 and 2 / claimants; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation and there is no reason to interfere with the same. Apart from that now a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards transport expenses.

21. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:

Rs.11,69,000-)

22. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.11,69,000/- is hereby reduced to Rs.7,45,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The appellant / insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount now determined http://www.judis.nic.in 19/21 C.M.A.No.1625 of 2020 by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.5470 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. The respondents 1 and 2 / claimants are entitled to refund of Court fee, in any, on the reduced amount of compensation now determined by this Court. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

10.11.2020 kk To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

http://www.judis.nic.in 20/21 C.M.A.No.1625 of 2020 V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.

kk C.M.A.No.1625 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.11960 of 2020 10.11.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 21/21