1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellants - original claimants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Dahod, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.83 of 2016, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,95,000/- with 9% per annum interest to the claimants.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,95,000/-, awarded by the tribunal is very meager considering the judgment of Page 1 of 10 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 12 21:52:46 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4561/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2024 undefined the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto reported in 2023 (1) SCC

204. He has also further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered the similar issue in the case of Kishan Gopal and Others Vs. Lala and Others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 as well as in the case of Kurvan Ansari Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another reported in (2022) 1 SCC 317, where the age of person is less than 18 years, the amount is required to be awarded appropriately. He has submitted that in view of the judgment of Meena Devi (supra), the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- is required to be awarded, whereas, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,95,000/-, therefore, further enhancement is required to be awarded by this Court. Therefore, he prays to allow this appeal with regard to the above mentioned enhancement.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the rival parties. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and the material available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made at the bar and after hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties. I am of the view that the tribunal has not properly dealt with the issue regarding the applicability of the judgments in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Kurvan Ansari (supra). It is also relevant to note that in the year 2022, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also reconfirmed the ratio laid down by the judgment in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) through the judgment rendered in the case of Meena Devi (supra), wherein, relevant paragraphs of the judgment in the case of Meena Devi (supra) are reproduced as under:

10. Thereafter in Kishan Gopal [Kishan Gopal v. Lala , (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] , a child aged about 10 years died in a road accident took place on 19-7-1992, this Court made departure from the IInd Schedule of the MV Act and accepted the notional income of Rs 30,000 in place of Rs 15,000 applying the analogy that the value of rupee has come down drastically since 1994 when the notional income of Rs 15,000 was fixed in IInd Schedule of the MV Act . However accepting the notional income as Rs 30,000 and as per the age of the parents i.e. 36 years, the loss of dependency was calculated applying the multiplier of 15 at Rs 4,50,000 and a sum of Rs 50,000 was awarded under conventional heads awarding a total sum of compensation of Rs 5,00,000.

11. Recently in Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu [Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 : (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 365 :

12. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs 15,000 as specified in the IInd Schedule of the MV Act has been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date on which the Page 6 of 10 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 12 21:52:46 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4561/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2024 undefined IInd Schedule of the MV Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs 30,000 in Kishan Gopal [Kishan Gopal v. Lala , (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] and Rs 25,000 in Kurvan Ansari [Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu , (2022) 1 SCC 317 : (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 365 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively.

13. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down in Kishan Gopal [Kishan Gopal v. Lala , (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that the deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs 30,000 including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , the loss of dependency comes to Rs 4,50,000 and if we add Rs 50,000 in conventional heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs 5,00,000. As per the judgment of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs 1,50,000 has been awarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs 2,00,000 up to the value of the claim petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs 5,00,000 and on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs 2,00,000, the enhanced amount comes to Rs 3,00,000.

14. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) Page 7 of 10 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 12 21:52:46 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4561/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2024 undefined 523] , it was observed that under the MV Act , there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount."

7. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meena Devi (supra) and other cases mentioned in that judgment, I am of the view that in the present case, whereby, the deceased who has expired in the accident is undisputedly aged 9 years as per the finding given by the tribunal, by relying on the various evidence; like P.M. Note, F.I.R, Panchnama and deposition of the appellant/s, whereby, it transpires that the deceased was going on the motorcycle as a pillion rider, at that point of time, accident has occurred and the deceased lost his life in the said accident. Therefore, it is not disputed that the age of the deceased was 9 years. There is no proof of income available on the record , in that case , the judgment in the case of Meena Devi (supra) is required to be applied and therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by judgment of Meena Devi (supra), more particularly, para 13 of that judgment, the annual notional earning of Rs.30,000/- is required to be considered and therefore, total Rs.5,00,000/- is required to be awarded by awarding multiplier of 15.

Loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- is required to be added towards the conventional head and therefore, total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is required to be awarded.

8. Considering the fact that the tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,95,000/-, the present appeal is allowed by awarding Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimants and by enhancing the awarded amount of the tribunal to the tune of Rs.2,05,000/-. Therefore, the enhanced amount by this Court to the tune of Rs.2,05,000/- with 9% per annum interest from the date of claim petition till actual realization shall be deposited by the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from today before the concerned tribunal.

9. On deposition of such amount, the Tribunal shall immediately disburse the entire awarded amount (including the enhanced amount) lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimants, by account payee cheque or by transferring the entire awarded amount in the bank account of the claimants, after proper verification.

10. With above observations and directions, the present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.