H. N. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. ( 2 ) THE claimants are the parents of the deceased Girish Nayaka. He was aged about 17 years when he died in a motor accident which occurred on 6. 8. 1994. The facts which, are undisputed are these: the deceased Girish Nayaka, aged about 17 years was just then admitted to first year mechanical engineering diploma in the Polytechnic Institute of Chickmagalur, which is evidenced by Exh. P-7 the certi- ficate issued by the Principal. He passed his S. S. L. C. in first class vide Exh. P-6 marks card. While he was riding a bicycle on 6. 8. 1994, at about 12. 30 p. m. on the left side of the road near Kadur, a maxi cab bearing the registration No. KA 02-5552 driven by respondent No. 1, which was in the ownership of respondent No. 2, insured with respondent No. 3, came in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed against the bicycle, as a result, the cyclist girish Nayaka sustained multiple injuries to his head and other parts of the body. He was taken to Government Hospital in the same vehicle. Later he was removed to nimhans, Bangalore, but he succumbed to the injuries after four days on 10. 8. 1994. The body was brought back to his native place in Kadur taluk for the funeral and obsequies. ( 3 ) IT is stated by the claimants that they incurred medical and other related expenditures of Rs. 15,000 for treatment of the deceased both at Kadur and Bangalore and that they suffered mental shock and agony as a result of loss of their only son in the motor accident. They made claim for Rs. 3,00,000 towards medical expenses, transportation, funeral and obsequies, loss of life and income, etc. (vide column 22 of the claim petition at page 4 ). ( 4 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2, the driver and the owner who entered appearance before the M. A. C. T. , through their advocate, failed to contest the claim. They left it to the respondent No. 3 insurer to contest the claim. The insurer filed objections disputing the claim made by the claimants. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2, the driver and the owner who entered appearance before the M. A. C. T. , through their advocate, failed to contest the claim. They left it to the respondent No. 3 insurer to contest the claim. The insurer filed objections disputing the claim made by the claimants. It is contended that the driver was not holding an effective driving licence to drive the type of the vehicle involved in the accident. ( 5 ) HEARD the arguments. ( 6 ) THE accident is not disputed. The fact that the offending vehicle was in the ownership of the respondent No. 2 is also not in dispute. In view of the contentions urged by the respondent No. 3 regarding negligence and quantum of compensation, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration: (1) Whether the accident was due to negligent driving of the maxi cab by the respondent No. 1? (2) Whether the claimants were entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount? ( 7 ) IN proof of their claim, the claimant no. 1, father of the deceased, got himself examined as PW 1 and relied on evidence of one of the eyewitnesses Shiva Naika examined as PW 2 who is a classmate of the deceased and claimants got marked 7 documents on their behalf. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 have not let in any oral evidence except marking the copy of the insurance policy as exh. R - 1 on behalf of respondent No. 3. ( 8 ) THE learned Member of the Tribunal, who heard the arguments in this case granted total compensation of Rs. 30,000 under the following heads: (a) Medical treatment, transportation, death ceremonies and obsequies Rs. 15,000 (b) Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000 (c) Mental agony Rs. 10,000 Total Rs. 30,000 in the opinion of the learned Member of the Tribunal, the petitioners were entitled to Rs. 30,000 on the basis of the materials placed before the court. (Emphasis supplied by me) ( 9 ) THE liability of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was joint and several and the respondent No. 3 was directed to deposit the amount of compensation granted by the trial court along with 6 per cent interest per annum. 30,000 on the basis of the materials placed before the court. (Emphasis supplied by me) ( 9 ) THE liability of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was joint and several and the respondent No. 3 was directed to deposit the amount of compensation granted by the trial court along with 6 per cent interest per annum. ( 10 ) AGGRIEVED by the inadequacy of compensation determined by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal essentially on the ground that, the Tribunal has ignored the essence of the claim, namely, death of 17 years old son of the claimants and loss occasioned to them on account of the death of their son in a motor accident. This is one of the main grounds of appeal apart from the other grounds canvassed for consideration of the court. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel Mr. D. C. Jaga- dish, for the appellant contended that the learned District Judge (Mr. Venkatesh) who rendered the judgment, has lost sight of the very claim made by the appellants. He has considered this claim only as personal injury action and not as fatal accident action and that the learned Judge has disclosed his ignorance of law governing the motor vehicle accident cases. According to him, the death of the appellant's son is not in dispute though his income is disputed on the ground that he was only a student of engineering diploma. The Tribunal should have granted lump sum compensation for the loss of life of the deceased. Obviously, the Tribunal has lost sight of the observations made by this court in general Manager, Karnataka State Road trans. Corpn. v. Yellappa Dharmoji Kittur, 1988 ACJ 556 (Karnataka), and the observations made in the said judgment in para 4. Therefore, appellants are entitled to reasonable and adequate compensation for the death of their 17 years old son in the motor accident. ( 12 ) MR. P. B. Raju, learned counsel for the insurer has not at all disputed these submissions canvassed for consideration by the learned counsel for the appellants. In fact, the learned counsel has fully supported these submissions made on behalf of the appellants. Learned counsel for the insurer has disputed legality of the award made by the Tribunal towards injury, pain and suffering, shock and medical expenditure. In fact, the learned counsel has fully supported these submissions made on behalf of the appellants. Learned counsel for the insurer has disputed legality of the award made by the Tribunal towards injury, pain and suffering, shock and medical expenditure. But, he further submitted that the tribunal ought to have considered the loss occasioned on account of the death of the son of the claimants, but the deceased was a non-earning member of the family and no loss as such occasioned as a result of his death. ( 13 ) IT is undisputed that a bright young man died on account of the negligent conduct of the driver of the offending vehicle. A young man of that age studying in mechanical engineering diploma was of some hope in the family of the appellants coming from poor family. Hapless condition of the parents under these circumstances are aptly drawn by their Lordships of the Karnataka high Court in Yellappa Dharmoji's case, 1988 ACJ 556 (Karnataka), is in the following words: "it is no doubt true that in cases of very young children, no basis exists for estimating the future pecuniary benefits which the parents could be said to have lost by the death. The prospects of employment and of financial assistance to the parents, who look up to their dutiful and grateful children, are so remote in the future that any estimates tend to become mere speculative possibilities than reasonable probabilities. Such estimates of chances of future monetary contributions to the parents are pressed into extinction by multiple uncertainties and imponderables of the future. It is, therefore, that awards are made in such cases in merely conventional sums. By these tests no award can, in the case of very young children, be made for the loss of future pecuniary benefits. (Emphasis added) ( 14 ) WHILE considering these observations made in Kittur's case, 1988 ACJ 556 (Karnataka), their Lordships of the High court of Karnataka in Puttamma v. D. V. Krishnappa, 2000 ACJ 103 (Karnataka), observed at para 4 of the judgment cited supra as follows:"therefore, Mr. Ramesh is not correct in saying that when a non-earning member of the family, may be a child of 14 years or 20 years suffers death because of the road accident, the loss suffered by the family is not required to be compensated. Ramesh is not correct in saying that when a non-earning member of the family, may be a child of 14 years or 20 years suffers death because of the road accident, the loss suffered by the family is not required to be compensated. The compensation, no doubt, will be more in the nature of a money solace. But, nonetheless, it needs to be quantified. " ( 15 ) THEREFORE, Mr. Raju is not correct in saying that legal representatives of the deceased, a non-earning member of the family aged about 17 years who died in the road accident, are not required to be compensated. The compensation is no doubt will be in terms of money, nonetheless, it needs to be quantified. Cases of this nature occur everyday and the Tribunals have to take note of law as there is no dearth of decisions rendered by this court and the apex Court. The learned Judge has ignored the facts of the case law governing the facts of this case. While the learned trial Judge, extracted some commentary made in 'how to claim, contest and assess motor accident compensation' by the author A. S. Bhatnagar, 4th Edn. , at page 458, for considering the claim for pain and suffering, has further relied upon the Division Bench ruling of Allahabad High Court for grant of compensation of Rs. 5,000 towards mental shock to the parents. He has failed to consider the loss occasioned on account of the death of 17 years old student. The tribunal has rightly granted Rs. 15,000 towards medical expenses. When the boy was treated for about 4 days in NIMHANS at Bangalore, claimants must have incurred some expenditure for transportation. ( 16 ) THE question which calls for consideration is whether the Tribunal has failed to consider the claim? ( 17 ) THE claim petition is filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal. The section provides application for compensation arising out of accident of this nature. Specified motor Vehicles Act is a social piece of legislation the species of which can be treated as law of Torts. ( 17 ) THE claim petition is filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal. The section provides application for compensation arising out of accident of this nature. Specified motor Vehicles Act is a social piece of legislation the species of which can be treated as law of Torts. As per sub-section (1) of section 165 of the Motor Vehicles act claim application may be made by:" (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. "under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles act, the Tribunal on receipt of the application for compensation made under section 166 of the Act after giving notice of the application to the insurer and other interested parties and an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. . . (Emphasis supplied by me) ( 18 ) IT is crystal clear from the perusal of the judgment that the Tribunal has failed to grant just compensation to the claimants. The judgment is clearly not justifiable. It is appropriate at this juncture to refer to few more decisions of the Apex Court. The Apex Court in Shanti Bai v. Charan singh, 1998 ACJ 848 (SC), considered the claim of the parents for the death of 18 years old son belonging to labour class leaving behind him his destitute mother and two minor brothers, one of them was working as a labourer earning about Rs. 10 per day, wherein, the victim died in motor accident on 17. 4. 1991. 10 per day, wherein, the victim died in motor accident on 17. 4. 1991. Taking a reasonable view of a notional future income, the compensation of Rs. 40,000 was awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the mother and brothers for enhancement. The Apex court having considered the background of the family and one of their son was working as a labourer earning Rs. 10 per day, observed that it was obvious that the deceased, had he survived, would have earned a substantial amount for the benefit of the family of the parents, who are destitute mother and minor children. Taking a reasonable view of the amount which the deceased would have earned had he survived, considering the future economic prospects of the deceased, the Apex Court increased the award by grant of lump sum amount of Rs. 1,50,000. A similar case came up for consideration before Division bench in Puttamma v. D. V. Krishnappa, 2000 ACJ 103 (Karnataka ). It is a case of death of 14 years old boy, the claim was made by the parents of the deceased. The division Bench of this court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haji zainullah Khan v. Nagar Mahapalika, allahabad, 1994 ACJ 993 (SC), granted compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 for the loss of the child to the family, ( 19 ) IN the light of these two judgments, i am of the clear opinion that appellants are entitled to compensation in the sum of rs. 1,50,000 for the death of their 17 years old boy in addition to Rs. 30,000 granted by the Tribunal under three heads of compensation, namely, for pain and suffering, mental agony, medical expenditure. Hence, the claimants-appellants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 1,80,000, which in my opinion is just and adequate. Therefore, the order of the Claims Tribunal is not justifiable and it is liable to be modified substantially. ( 20 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the award passed by the Claims tribunal, total compensation of Rs. 1,80,000 is granted in favour of the appellants-claimants. The enhanced amount carries interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till its payment. Appeal partly allowed. --- *** --- .