JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of all the parties these two appeals are heard finally. 2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 588/98, was filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation as well as enhancement of the interest whereas S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 614/98 has been filed by appellants owner of the Jeep. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the claim petition was filed in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner by the claimants Dr. Shiv Shankar and his wife Smt. Shashi Swami alleging that their son Ashish who was of the age of 8-9 years met with the accident on 3rd February, 1989, while travelling in Auto Rickshaw No. RSF/3001, which was driven by the driver, Ramdhan. It is alleged that driver Ramdhan was driving the Auto Rickshaw rashly and negligently and there were more children than the capacity. The accident took place when a Jeep No. DLI/8145 came and the driver Ram Kishan was driving the above jeep. Ram Kishan was also driving the Jeep rashly and negligently. In this accident the claimants son Ashish died whereas other persons were injured. The claim case No. 25/89 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of I.P.C. The owner of the Auto Rickshaw is Madanlal and it was insured with the National Insurance Company where as the Jeep was insured with the same National Insurance Company. 4. It is alleged by the claimants that Ashish was brilliant and healthy student and he was the only son of the claimants and because of operation of the claimant No. 1 there was no chance of another issue of the claimant. It is also stated that Ashish was standing first in the class and, therefore, the claimants claimed total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- as damages. The non-appellants No. 1 and 2 Rameshwar and Ram Kishan who are the appellant in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 614/98 submitted their reply to the claim and stated that non-applicant Ram Kishan was not driving the above Jeep and it was stated that at the time of accident Rameshwar was not the owner of the vehicle, therefore, both are not liable for the above amount. Appeal No. 614/98 submitted their reply to the claim and stated that non-applicant Ram Kishan was not driving the above Jeep and it was stated that at the time of accident Rameshwar was not the owner of the vehicle, therefore, both are not liable for the above amount. Reply was filed by the National Insurance Company non-applicant No. 5 in which it is stated that in police investigation no fault was found of the Auto-Rickshaw driver and it is stated that there is no relationship of the Insurance Company with the owner of the Jeep. No reply was filed on behalf of non-applicants No. 3 and 4 Madan Lal and Ramdhan and the tribunal proceeded ex-parte against them. Non-applicant No. 6 Gokual submitted reply and stated that he was never owner of the Jeep and he never signed the sale letter dated 8th February, 1989 in favour of the non-applicant. Rameshwar and there is no relation of the non-application No. 6 With this accident. 5. The Trial Court framed issues and while deciding issue No. 1 held that there was rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of both the vehicles causing death of the deceased Ashish, the claimant's son. While deciding issue No. 3 the tribunal held that Rameshwar non-applicant No. 1 was the owner of the vehicle and the Ram Kishan was the driver at the time of the accident. While deciding issues No. 4 and 5 the tribunal held that non-applicant No. 5 is liable upto the extent of Rs. 15,000/- only. The tribunal considered the damages to be awarded and awarded Rs. 80,000/- in lump sum to the claimants and also awarded Rs. 20,000/- for deprivation of love and affection of Ashish to the appellants and, therefore, awarded total Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The tribunal also decided issue No. 6 and held that delay was caused by the applicants, therefore, the claimants are not entitled for the normal rate of interest of 12% per annum and the claimants are entitled for interest @ 6% per annum only. 6. The tribunal also decided issue No. 6 and held that delay was caused by the applicants, therefore, the claimants are not entitled for the normal rate of interest of 12% per annum and the claimants are entitled for interest @ 6% per annum only. 6. The claimants submitted in the appeal that compensation awarded to the claimants is too low and relied upon the various judgments wherein it was held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for award of compensation in case death of minor and to assess the award various factors are required to be seen. Learned Counsel for the appellant in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 588/98 relied upon few judgments wherein the compensation amount was enhanced in case of death of minors from Rs. 1,00,000/- to even upto Rs. 1,50,000/-. Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the award of interest is too low. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 614/98 submitted that there are interpolation in the Insurance Policies, which are apparent from the copies of the Insurance Policies of the Jeep. Learned Counsel for the appellant in appeal No. 614/98 also submitted that the award amount cannot be said to be low looking to the age of the deceased whereas learned Counsel for the National Insurance Company Ltd., submitted that their liability is upto Rs. 15,000/- only. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 Gokul submitted that he had no connection with the accident and the tribunal rightly decided the suit in their favour. 8. Learned Counsel for the owner of the Auto Rickshaw, submitted that in number of cases the award amount is even less than Rs. 1,00,000/- in case of death of minor and also relied upon the judgment laying down that there cannot be hard and fast rule of award of compensation in straight jacket formula in case of death of minor and the award amount is sufficient compensation to the claimants. 9. I perused the record and it is clear from the finding recorded on issue No. 1, which is not in dispute that the accident took place between the above Jeep and Auto Rickshaw. In view of the evidence on record, it is clear that Ashish, son of the claimants died in this accident. 9. I perused the record and it is clear from the finding recorded on issue No. 1, which is not in dispute that the accident took place between the above Jeep and Auto Rickshaw. In view of the evidence on record, it is clear that Ashish, son of the claimants died in this accident. None of the Counsel could seriously dispute the finding recorded on issue No. 1 and there is no illegality in the finding recorded by the tribunal on this issue. The tribunal has critically analyzed the evidence of the witnesses and also considered the documentary evidence and I am also in agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that both the driver of the vehicles, were responsible for the above accident. 10. Who was the owner of the Jeep at the time of accident was decided by the Tribunal, while considering the issue No. 3 NAW-2 Rameshwar submitted that vehicle was purchased on 8th February, 1989 vide sale letter NAW-3 and it is submitted that Gokul Chand signed this sale letter, which was denied by the Gokul Chand. Ramesh was failed to prove that Gokul Chand was the owner of the vehicle and Rameshwar deliberately did not produce the registration certificate of the vehicle and only produce a Photostat copy of the registration certificate. That Photostat copy should not have been considered by the Tribunal but it was also examined and after examining that photostat copy, the Tribunal observed that there is no evidence on this document also of transfer of the vehicle in the name of Gokul Chand and originally the jeep was registered in the name of one Sh. Hanuman of Delhi and it was registered in the name of Rameshwar on 23rd February, 1989. When Rameshwar himself failed to produce best evidence available with him then adverse inference is required to be drawn against Rameshwar and the registration in favour of Rameshwar is shown to be on 23rd February, 1989 and this date is not the date of purchase by Rameshwar as admitted by Rameshwar in his reply itself. When Rameshwar himself failed to produce best evidence available with him then adverse inference is required to be drawn against Rameshwar and the registration in favour of Rameshwar is shown to be on 23rd February, 1989 and this date is not the date of purchase by Rameshwar as admitted by Rameshwar in his reply itself. When he submitted that he purchased the vehicle on 8th February, 1989 then the continuity of the events can be presumed forward as well as backward and if Rameshwar wanted to take a defence of purchasing the vehicle on a particular date namely, after occurrence of the accident, then it was for Rameshwar to prove the fact by cogent evidence. Therefore, in view of the reasoning given by the Tribunal there is no illegality committed by the Tribunal in deciding issue No. 3 while holding that Rameshwar was the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident and nobody challenged the finding on holding that Ram Kishan was driving the vehicle. So far as liability of Insurance Company upto the extent of limit of Rs. 15,000/- is concerned, none has challenged that finding. 11. The total emphasis of the appellant in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 588/98 is that the award is too low whereas total emphasis of learned Counsel for the appellant in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 614/98 is that award is too high. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and the No. 3. In view of all the judgments cited by both the parties, it is clear that all the matters were decided in view of the facts of each case and as per the submissions of both the Counsel there cannot be a straight jacket formula for awarding compensation in case of death of minor. In view of all the judgments, each case is to be decided according to the facts of each case. Therefore, the facts of this case are relevant. It is stated that the claimants had only one son and it is also stated that he was meritorious and there is evidence on oath in support of this contention and it is stated by AW-1 Dr. Shiv Shankar claimant No. 1 that Ashish was the only son and he also produced the medical certificate Ex. It is stated that the claimants had only one son and it is also stated that he was meritorious and there is evidence on oath in support of this contention and it is stated by AW-1 Dr. Shiv Shankar claimant No. 1 that Ashish was the only son and he also produced the medical certificate Ex. P. 1 to show that he undergone the operation and, therefore, there is no chance of any other issue to the claimants. It is also stated that deceased was standing first in the class on every occasion and he produced mark-sheet Ex. P. 2 and P. 3. It was stated that deceased had good health and after his death there may be end of his family line. It appears that there is no cross-examination on these vital issues and there appears to be virtually no evidence in rebuttal to the above vital facts and, therefore, the relevant factors in this case for award of compensation, which are proved by the claimants, are that the deceased was only son and there is no possibility of other issue to the claimants and in case the deceased who was meritorious and healthy boy would have survived he must have given much more to this parents because of the fact that he was the only person to take care of his parents. Therefore, he might have given income in future to the appellants looking to his age. The death of only son, chances of no other issue must have caused much more graver mental shock to the parents of the deceased whereas the Tribunal has only considered the age of the deceased and mentioned that he was the only son and the claimant No. 1 has , undergone operation, therefore, Rs. 80,000/- be awarded. 12. I deem it proper to consider all the facts mentioned above and, in my opinion, the amount awarded to the claimants appears to be on lower side in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of mental shock to the claimants as their only son died in the accident and there is no chance of other issue to the claimants and they were deprived of further prospects of earning of the deceased. Therefore, the amount of the compensation deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The amount of Rs. Therefore, the amount of the compensation deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded for loss of love and affection to the claimants appears to be just and, therefore, the finding on issue No. 2 is modified to the extent of enhancing compensation from Rs. 80,000/- to 1,50,000/-. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded for love & affection shall remain as it is and thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation of total amount of Rs. 1,70,000/-. 13. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% after considering the facts of the case that claim petition was filed in the year 1989 and at the time Gokul Chand was not the party and Insurance Company made party only on 11th Jan., 1996 and, therefore, the evidence of the claimant was completed only on 23rd March, 1997, therefore, the claimants were negligent in conducting their case. The claimants submitted application for impleading the Insurance Company as party on 11th Jan., 1996 wherein it is stated that claimant came to know about the above fact when he came to give evidence in criminal case and the Tribunal allowed that application. 14. The claimants are in very disadvantageous position because they are stranger to the incident in case of death and claimants may not be able to lay hand on the material facts with respect to even ownership of the vehicle and, therefore, they are also not in a position to get the full information of the insurance of the vehicle immediately. In this case, when there is a serious dispute with respect to the ownership of the vehicle and it is clear that there is a registration of the vehicle as added after the date of accident, therefore, when the claimants took some time in finding out the complete facts and when brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal permitted amendment and impleaded them as party then it cannot be said that this was the deliberate and wilful negligence of the claimants in conducting their case. Therefore, the reduction of the interest amount cannot be justified. It is relevant to mention here that this was the equal duty of the owner of the vehicle to place on record the complete facts with respect to their ownership of the vehicles as well as their Insurance. The blame cannot be put only on the claimants. Therefore, the reduction of the interest amount cannot be justified. It is relevant to mention here that this was the equal duty of the owner of the vehicle to place on record the complete facts with respect to their ownership of the vehicles as well as their Insurance. The blame cannot be put only on the claimants. Therefore, the finding recorded on issue No. 6 is set aside and when the Tribunal itself held that claimants are normally entitled for interest @ 12% per annum then in this case also the claimants are entitled for the interest @ 12% annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of award dated 24th July, 1998 and in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court the claimants are entitled for the interest @ 9% per annum till the date of realisation of the above amount. The liability of the Insurance Company is limited. The enhanced amount is to be paid proportionately as awarded by the Tribunal. The amount which has already been paid shall be given due deduction while calculating the compensation. 15. Therefore, the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 588/98 is partly allowed and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 614/98 is dismissed.Appeal partly allowed. *******