JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
1. The unfortunate mother and two brothers of deceased Sanjay s/o Marotrao Khekde have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur on 23.12.1983 in Claim Petition No. 23 of 1981 Smt. Chandrakalabai and Ors. v. Dhnyaneshwar and Ors. whereby the said Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 32,400/- to the claimants.
2. In the claim petition filed by the mother and the two brothers of deceased Sanjay before the Tribunal, it was averred that on 3.12.1980 after attending the school, Sanjay went to see a movie in Vayusena Nagar in the afternoon and when he was going on bicycle with other friends, near Vayusena Nagar Square, a metador bearing No. MHG-6592 dashed Sanjay’s cycle and as a result thereof Sanjay died. Metador MHG-6592 was being driven at that time by the respondent No. 1 Dhyaneshwar and the said Metador belonged to the respondent No. 2 and was insured with the respondent No. 3. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- on the basis that at the time of accident Sanjay was 18 years old and studying in Xth standard in Dharampeth High School. According to the claimants, Sanjay was brilliant student and had ability to pursue higher studies and it was expected that he would become doctor and would have spent for his mother Rs. 300/- per month and Rs. 200/- per month for each of his two brothers. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was claimed towards mental shock.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed joint Written Statement and did not dispute factum of accident, but denied rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle. Quantum of compensation was also disputed by the respondents 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 adopted the Written Statement of the respondents 1 and 2.
4. The Tribunal held that it has been proved that the deceased Sanjay died on 3.12.1980 near Vayusena Nagar Square as a result of the motor accident and the said accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of Metador No. MHG 6592 being driven by Dhyaneshwar at that time. The Tribunal held that the benefit to the family i.e. to the mother would have been to the tune of Rs. 100/- per month and would have derived by the mother for 27 years and accordingly passed an award of Rs. 32,400/-.
5. In this appeal, there is no challenge to the findings on the question of death of Sanjay in the accident and that the said accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of Metador No. MHG-6592.
6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants while assailing the award of Rs. 32,400/- to the claimants is, on the ground that the said award is too low and unreasonable. The learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal did not advert properly to the merits and brilliance of the deceased Sanjay in his studies and that even if he would not have become Doctor, from the evidence having come on record, it could safely be assumed that he would have been well established in his life. According to the learned Counsel, he would have contributed minimum sum of Rs. 300/- per month to the mother and Rs. 200/- each to his brother after establishing himself in his life and, therefore, the claim deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 1,52,000/-, as claimed by the Appellants. The learned Counsel also claimed that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest on the compensation and, therefore, appeal deserves to be allowed.
7. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service. The Division Bench of this Court in Tehmina P. Jasawalla v. Mahadeo Sitaram Ghadi and Ors. 1983 ACJ 666 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000/- in the appeal arising out of the death of a boy aged 16 years. The Division Bench held as under:
In view of the background of the family of the applicant, we fell that Rs. 300/- per month flat for a period of fifteen years representing direct benefit to the applicant would be a reasonable amount for calculating. It is conceivable that the expenses of the deceased would go up if he entered the matrimonial bond but it can also be expected that correspondingly his income would have increased during that period in view of the experience gained. Consequently, instead of making such distinctions and evolving a graduated scale of income, we adopt a flat rate of Rs. 300/- per month as the monetary benefit that the applicant-mother would have obtained from her son.
8. In K.L. Kasar and Anr. v. Haribhau Savlaram Shejwal and Ors. 1985 ACJ 92 the Division Bench of this Court upheld the award of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the death of a boy studying in Xth standard having aptitude for photography and in ancillary arts like printing, developing and enlarging. This Court, thus, held:
Coming now to the question of damages, the learned Member has taken note of the fact that though the deceased was a school going boy, he had an aptitude for photography and wanted to follow the footsteps of his father who was working as a photographer in a reputed company. According to Haribhau Shejwal, who is serving as photographer in Metal Box Company at Worli, Bombay, his son used to be commissioned for photography at certain functions like marriages, thread ceremony etc. He was also excelling in the other ancillary arts like printing, developing and enlarging, was a good sportsman, a swimmer and his father had planned to send him to London to do specialization in Industrial and Commercial Photography. Haribhau had also rented some room and installed machinery for colour processing and had negotiated for a loan from Janata Cooperative Bank for that purpose. According to Haribhau even if the boy did not make it good to the London School, he would have been taken as an apprentice on Rs. 350/- per month stipend and later on absorbed in a pay scale of Rs. 900/- rising to Rs. 3,500/- per month. Haribhaus second son Siddheshwar is physically crippled and mentally retarded and a liability to the family. In these circumstances, Haribhau and his wife were looking towards Dnyaneshwar for dependence after former’s retirement. As the boy was a student, a certain amount of guess work has indubitably to be made regarding the future prospects of a student but considering the proven ability of the boy in the art of photography, we feel that the reasonable expectation of the family– more so with a retarded brother in the household to look after-r-during the first 7 years would be 2/3rd of Rs. 1,000/- per month or about Rs. 8,000/- per year which brings us to a figure of Rs. 56,000/-, During the next 8 years, the boy would have married, raised a family and the allowance which his parents could have expected from him would naturally dwindle to about Rs. 500/- per month or Rs. 6,000/- per year. For this slab of 8 years the aggregate would come to Rs. 48,000/- and the total on account of financial loss would come to Rs. 1,04,000/-. To that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- could be added for loss of expectation of life which brings us to a figure of Rs. 1,09,000/-. As the claimant has restricted his claim only to Rs. 1,00,000/-, we find that the learned Member of the Tribunal was right in awarding the same. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
9. The Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court in New India Assurance Co., Alwar and Anr. v. Ram Dayan and Ors. awarded a compensation of Rs. 48,000/-for the death of a boy of 18 years having passed HSSC examination with standing 3rd in merit list. The Rajasthan High Court observed as under:
23. In the fatal accident of young boys, who normally are educated and nourished by the parents as the future light in the dark home of their old age and, the only source of bread and shelter when they become old and infirm and cannot earn either on account of the retirement from service or on account of the failing health, the boys are nourished by the parents by spending lion’s share of their income to make them prospective bread earners for them and a source of exclusive dependency on them. In view of these, social conditions of our country, the loss of bread earner for parents is not to be considered on the principles laid down by the English Courts or American Courts “where there are old age Homes, the old aged social security schemes, and lodges.
27. One important feature of the above decision is that in other cases in which expectancy of the parents’ depends upon the deceased, the income is put to a “full stop” with his marriage and the calculation is done of the income normally which they would derive till he is married. The above principle, in my opinion, is completely untenable. In fact, the start of the career of a young person on the completion of the education and the qualification or, attains initial expression starts only at an age of 20 to 25 years and the normal age at which the people are married depending upon different customs is also the same. In my view, it is only when youth attains the age of 30 or 35 and he is 40 when he reaches height of his income which mostly increases in fifty also. In the normal course, in cases of employees or officers or servants the maximum income is at the time of retirement which is normally at 58 or 55 years, or 60 to 62 depending upon the nature of the employment. The business executive or businessman or professional is at the top in the sixty. The best of the Advocates or Doctors usually obtains heights in sixty or seventy and so also is the case of other professions where by experience, expertise knowledge gives the maximum figure of the income of person in his advanced age. Such being the condition of the society, I am surprises, how and why the age of marriage treated as the age when a “full-stop” is to be put to the expectancy of income by the parents and the calculation is done on that basis. Whatever deduction there would be on account of sharing of the income by wife and children after marriage would be squared up by increase in income after the marriage on the subsequent growth of age and the maturity.
28. In my considered opinion, all the above decisions where the expectancy of the income has been limited till the year one is expected to marry and also where the income is to be calculated on the basis of the income which a beginner will have; suffers from serious fallacy of failing to take notice all the above important speaking circumstances of the social life which requires no evidence or proof in the individual cases. It may also be noticed that in Indian conditions, the parents expect their sons to support them till they breathe last and even in the worst time of ailment of old age. It would, therefore, be impossible to draw an analogy of our Indian condition with that conditions prevailing in England or America or other western countries where as soon as a young boy grows up, he severes with the family and the parents cannot expect support in their old age where they solely depend upon the old age homes, the institutions of the Government or semi-Government agencies.
10. In Ram Dayal’s case (supra), the Rajasthan High Court considered Tehmina P. Jasawalla’s case (supra) decided by this Court and applied the principles of that judgment.
11. The Delhi High Court in Tail Singh v. Jagan Nath and Ors. awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as per the claim of claimants for the death of a boy, aged 16 years having passed High School. It was held that the deceased had passed high school examination in 1968 and he would have also* been suitably employed either after completing his education or after getting some professional training and that the deceased would have earned at least Rs. 750/- per month and would have contributed Rs. 500/- per month towards the family and applying the multiplier of 15, the compensation in that case should have been Rs. 90,000/-, but since the claimant had claimed only Rs. 50,000/-, the said award was passed.
12. In Nand Kishore Verma and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court enhanced the award in appeal to Rs. 50,000/- for the death of a boy aged 9 years.
13. In the matter of compensation for the death of a child, the claimant-parents’ expectations from the child would have to be taken into consideration for determination of just compensation payable. A young widow mother had expected deceased Sanjay, who was her eldest son, the become Doctor. Before coming to Nagpur in the year 1980, the boy was studying in the Public School at Hyderabad. May or may not be Sanjay would have got admission in Medical College or would have become Doctor. Even if Sanjay would not have become Doctor, one thing was certain that as any other ordinary student, he would have completed his education and secured a job thereafter. As a minimum contribution to the mother and the family, figure of Rs. 300/- per month could be very reasonably arrived at and applying 15 as a multiplier, the claimants become entitled to Rs. 54,000/- Making this figure to be a round figure, an award of compensation of Rs. 50.000/- appears to be just and reasonable.
14. We, therefore, hold that the award of Rs. 32,400/- passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur is too low and unreasonable and deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-.
15. The Tribunal has not awarded interest on the compensation nor has given any reason for not awarding the interest. We feel that the claimants are entitled to the interest @ 12% per annum on the awarded sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the date of claim petition.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur on 23.12.1983 in Claim Petition No. 23 of 1981 Smt. Chandrakalabai and Ors. v. Dhnyaneshwar and Ors. is modified and the claimants/appellants are held entitled to the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. The respondents are jointly and severally liable and are directed to make payment/deposit of the enhanced amount of compensation/award within two months from today or within two months from the date of intimation by the claimants, whichever is earlier. The respondents shall bear the costs of the appeal proportionate to the enhanced claim.