JUDGMENT 1. 1. These appeals are being decided by this common order as the facts and law relating to these appeals are common. 2. The victims, in these appeals, are the children within the age group of upto 5 years, 5 to 10 years and 10 to 15 years. 3. The parents of the deceased children have filed the claim petitions seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which were contested by the respondents i.e. the drivers and the owners of the offending vehicles and the respective Insurance Companies with whom the vehicles involved in accidents stood insured. On scanning the evidence, the Tribunals came to the conclusion that the drivers and the owners of the offending vehicles are vicariously liable and fastened the liability on the Insurance Company to indemnify the award amount. 4. Compensation In the case of child death upto the age of 5 years has been awarded from Rs. 35,000/- to 75,000/- in different claim petitions and in the case of child death in the age group of 5 to 10 years from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,02,000/- and in the age group of 10 to 15 years, Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/. 5. The appeals have been preferred on the ground that the respective Tribunals have not properly appreciated the evidence and in some of the cases lump sum award has been awarded whereas in other cases, the structured formula of multiplier has been adopted, therefore, discriminatory approach and double yard stick have been adopted by the Tribunals to determine the loss of dependency. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the memorandum of the appeals and the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the Tribunals have either ignored or failed to take notice of the judgments of the Supreme Court cited at the bar wherein the compensation on account of death in an vehicular accident, Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- in the age group of 5 to 10 years and a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- in the age group of 10 to 15 years of children, has been awarded, therefore, the impugned award of the Tribunals are erroneous in law an deserve to be set aside. 8. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- in the age group of 5 to 10 years and a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- in the age group of 10 to 15 years of children, has been awarded, therefore, the impugned award of the Tribunals are erroneous in law an deserve to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel have submitted that the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of (1) Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2001 ACJ 1735 has set down the principles for determining the compensation and intended to impress upon the Court to follow and apply the judgment (supra) for determining the compensation in the case of death of a child,. The plea appears to be not tenable in law for the reason that this judgment has not been delivered in a case arising out of Motor Accident rather in the above case a writ petition was filed before the Court claiming compensation and also for prosecution of the defaulters for the negligence of breaking out fire which engulfed all the factory premises and caused casualties. The Court categorized the victim children in two categories between the age group of 5 to 10 years and 10 to 15 years and determined the compensation in para 11 of the judgment in a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to a victim child of 5 to 10 years and Rs. 1,57,000/- in the age group of 10 to 15 years, observing that Mr. Nariman, appearing for the TISCO, on his own, has submitted that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups should be doubled as in his view also, the determination made is grossly inadequate. It is not the just compensation determined by the Court but the Company itself has come forward to pay the doubled compensation to the claimants to that what was assessed by the Court. Accordingly the court determined the compensation making it double. The Court added Rs. 50,000/- as conventional allowance raising the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the case of victims in the age group of 5 to 10 years. In the case of victims in the age group of 10 to 15 years the contribution of Rs. 12,000/- per annum appeared to be lower side and the annual contribution was considered as Rs. 24,000/- and instead of multiplier of 11, the multiplier of 15 was applied. In the case of victims in the age group of 10 to 15 years the contribution of Rs. 12,000/- per annum appeared to be lower side and the annual contribution was considered as Rs. 24,000/- and instead of multiplier of 11, the multiplier of 15 was applied. Therefore, the compensation so calculated on the aforesaid basis was worked out to Rs. 3,60,000/- to which an additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- was added and assessed the compensation amount to Rs. 4,10,000/-. The above case has its own peculiar circumstances and the judgment sought to be followed, therefore, cannot be made applicable for determining the compensation in the cases arising out of the Motor Accidents whereas in Lata Wadhawa's case the children were victim of fire and while determining compensation, the Court observed as under:- "So far as the award of compensation in case of children are concerned, Shri Justice Chandrachud, has divided them into two groups, first group between the age group of 5 to 10 years and the second group between the age group of 10 to 15 years. In case of children between the age group of 5 to 10 years, a uniform sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been held to be payable by way of compensation, to which the conventional figure of Rs. 25,000/- has been added and as such to the heirs of the 14 children, a consolidated sum of Rs. 75,000/- each, has been awarded. So far as the children in the age group of 10 to 15 years, there are 10 such children, who died on the fateful day and having found their contribution to the family at Rs. 12,000/- per annum, 11 multiplier has been applied, particularly, depending upon the age of the father and then the conventional compensation of Rs. 25,000/- has been added to each case and consequently, the heirs of each of the deceased above 10 years of age, have been granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,57,000/- each. In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child's life-time. But this will not necessarily bar the parents claim and prospective loss will found a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child's life-time. But this will not necessarily bar the parents claim and prospective loss will found a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Ry v. Jenkins [1913] A.C.I. , and lord Atkinson said thus : .....all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first, that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can I think be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them. At the same time, it must be held that a mere speculative possibility of benefit is not sufficient. Question whether there exists a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage is always a mixed question of fact and law. There are several decided cases on this point, providing the guidelines for determination of compensation in such cases but we do not think it necessary for us to advert, as the claimants had not adduced any materials on the reasonable expectation of, pecuniary benefits, which the parents expected. In case of a bright and healthy boy, his performances In the school, it would be easier for the authority to arrive at the compensation amount, which may be different from another sickly, unhealthy, rickety child and bad student, but as has been stated earlier, not an iota of material was produced before Shri Justice Chandrachud to enable him to arrive at just compensation in such cases and, therefore, he has determined the same on an approximation. Mr. Mr. Nariman, appearing for the TISCO on his own, submitted that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be doubled, as in his views also, the determination made is grossly inadequate. Loss of a child to the parents is irrecoupable, and no amount of money could compensate the parents. Having regard to the environment from which these children were brought, their parents being reasonably well placed officials of the Tara Iron and Steel Company, and on considering the submission of Mr. Nariman, we would direct that the compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other words, it should be Rs. 1.5 lakhs, to which the conventional figure of Rs. 50,000/- should be added and thus the total amount in each case would be Rs. 2.00 lakhs. So far as the children between the age group of 10 to 15 years, they are all student of Class VI to Class X and the children of employees of TISCO. The TISCO itself has a tradition that every employee can get one of his child employed in the company. Having regard to these facts in their case, the contribution of Rs. 12,000/- per annum appear to us to be on the lower side and in our considered opinion, the contribution should be Rs. 24,000/- and instead of 11 multiplier, the appropriate multiplier would be 15. Therefore, the compensation, so calculated on the aforesaid basis should be worked out to Rs. 3.60 lakhs, to which an additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- has to be added, thus making the total amount payable at Rs. 4.10 lakhs for each of the claimants of the aforesaid deceased children." 9. A child aged about nine years was knocked down by a truck which was the subject matter of insurance with the Insurance Company. As a result of the accident, the child died. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') claiming compensation. The MACT found that the child was not earning, therefore, the compensation has to be assessed on the basis of notional income. MACT applied Second Schedule of the Act and held that the notional income as per the said Schedule is Rs. 15,000/- p.a., but the same was unrealistic. According the notional income was taken as Rs. The MACT found that the child was not earning, therefore, the compensation has to be assessed on the basis of notional income. MACT applied Second Schedule of the Act and held that the notional income as per the said Schedule is Rs. 15,000/- p.a., but the same was unrealistic. According the notional income was taken as Rs. 30,000/- p.a. After deducing ⅓rd towards personal expenses, the financial dependency of the parents was fixed at Rs. 20,000/- p.a. Considering the age of the parents, multiplier of 17 was adopted. The total financial dependency was calculated at Rs. 3,40,000/- and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was added for emotional less and adding a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses a sum of Rs. 4,45,000/- was awarded as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the claim petition till payment. Appeal preferred before the High Court by the appellant came to be dismissed. SLP was preferred against the judgment of the High Court before the Supreme Court being case title (2) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender and Ors. 2007 (1) TAC 11 (SC) , the Apex Court while dealing with a case of death of a child of 9 years, relying upon and distinguishing the judgments of the Supreme Court delivered in the cases title (3) State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Ors. 2003 (7) SCC 484 and Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (supra), granted compensation of F255D 1,80,.000/- and did not apply to ratio of the judgment of Lata Wadhwa's case, observing as under : "The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non-earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents. In case of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation." 10. The Apex Court thought it just and appropriate to award compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- along with the interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till the payment is made, as the deceased was a child, earning nothing but had a prospect to earn, and the question of assessment was stiffer. 11. In case title (4) Manju Devi and another v. Musafir Paswan and another 2005 (1) TAC 609 , while determining compensation on account of death of a 13 years old child, the Supreme Court considered the judgment delivered in case title (5) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra 1996 ACJ 831 , and applied the multiplier of 15 as per II Schedule annexed with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 taking notional income of Rs. 15,000/- being a non-earning person and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- observing as under : "In the case of U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831: 1996 (2) TAC 286 (SC) , it has been held by this Court that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation. It has been held that the multiplier method must be accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country. It has been held that the multiplier method must be accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country. In view of this authority, it will have to be held that the award of compensation had to be made by the multiplier method. As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- must be taken as the income. Thus the compensation comes to Rs. 2,25,000/-." 12. With regard to compensation for the victim non-earning children, the Apex Court has extensively dealt with these aspects in case the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender and Ors. (supra). Therefore, these appeals are disposed of holding the claimants entitled to the following compensation: (i) The claimants of the victim child in the age group upto 5 years shall be entitled to compensation to a sum of Rs. One lac. (ii) The claimants of victim child in the age group of 5 to 10 years shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-. (iii) The claimants of the victim child in the age group of 10 to 15 years shall be entitled to compensation to a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-. 13. They shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per-annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions. 14. The impugned awards wherein the compensation has been awarded above to that which has been granted by this order are set aside to that extent. 15. The impugned award wherein the compensation has been enhanced by this order shall be treated to have been allowed and the impugned awards shall stand modified.Appeals disposed of. *******