JUDGMENT
Deepak Verma, J.
1. This appeal is under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the instance of the Insurance Company against the award dated 19.7.2004 passed in M.V. Case No. 80 of 2003.
2. Son aged about 18 years of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and brother of respondent No. 3 died in a road accident on 25.5.2001 when the car, in which he was travelling was dashed rashly and negligently by the truck bearing registration No. MP 09-KB 2323 driven by respondent No. 4, owned by respondent No. 5 and insured with the present appellant.
3. On claim being filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 along with other claimants, who had also sustained bodily injuries all the claim petitions were consolidated and were disposed of by the common award. Claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have been awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of application till it is actually paid. According to the appellant Insurance Company the amount is on higher side and deserves to be suitably reduced. Claimant Nos. 1 and 2 both are Advocates by profession. Ronak deceased was the only son of these claimants. He had already completed his class XII examination and was desirous of seeking admission in Symbiosis College, Pune so as to pursue BBA and MBA courses. For the said purposes he had completed all the formalities and had even received his interview call. On account of his sudden and unfortunate death in road accident, the claimants were put to great mental shock and agony besides being put to financial loss. They, therefore, filed the claim petition. On appreciation of evidence available on record the Claims Tribunal has awarded the aforesaid amount.
4. After having gone through the record and the evidence available on record, we are of the opinion that just, proper and adequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants. Section Kochatta, PW 1, has deposed in para 6 of his deposition the details of his son Ronak, who died in the accident. Throughout he had taken education in a convent school. He had a fairly brilliant career. He was also good in his studies. In the said road accident the only son lost his life.
5. Though there may not be any adequate compensation for loss of a son but we have to see whether the amount awarded can be said to be just and proper amount of compensation and it may not be treated as a bonanza. Looking to the family status of the claimants, the educational qualifications, the environment in which the boy was growing and also the future prospects that the boy had, we do not think that the amount awarded is exorbitant or on higher side. In our view, no case for interference was made out.
6. The appeal being devoid of merit or substance is, hereby, dismissed.
