JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - This order will dispose of FAO Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of 1985 as they arise out of the common award dated 11.10.1984 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra. However, for facility of reference, facts are taken from FAO No. 69 of 1985 titled as Smt. Jagpali and others v. Paramjit and others. 2. The appellants-claimants moved an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act), claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. two lacs fifty thousands) on account of death of Shri Prem Pal Singh, aged 35 years who was practising Doctor at village Dhand, Tehsil Kaithal. In the claim petition, it was averred that on 14th of January, 1983 at about 10.15 a.m. deceased Prem Pal Singh was going on his motor-cycle on Kaithal road along with his two minor daughters namely Vijay Shree deceased and Meenakshi. When he reached near Bus Stand village Geong, the offending vehicle of the Haryana Roadways bearing registration No. HRL 8386 coming from the opposite side, which was said to be driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No. 1-Paramjit, struck against the ill-facted motor-cycle from the right front side of the bus. As a result of the said accident, deceased Prem Pal Singh and his minor daughter Vijay Shree and Meenakshi sustained injuries. Later on, at Hospital Prem Pal Singh and his daughter Vijay Shree succumbed to the injuries, whereas his daughter Meenakshi also suffered injuries in the said accident. On account of this accident, three claim petitioners were filed, one claiming compensation on account of death of Vijay Shree, the second by Meenakshi, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by her and the 3rd by the legal heirs of the deceased Prem Pal Singh claiming compensation on account of his death. 3. These claim petitions were contested by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, whereas Paramjit, driver of the offending vehicle did not choose to file any reply, but adopted the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In the reply, it was claimed that the accident had occurred due to negligence of Shri Prem Pal Singh. 3. These claim petitions were contested by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, whereas Paramjit, driver of the offending vehicle did not choose to file any reply, but adopted the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In the reply, it was claimed that the accident had occurred due to negligence of Shri Prem Pal Singh. It was stated that it was a foggy day and the bus was standing at the Bus Stand when Shri Prem Pal Singh came from the opposite side at a very speed and struck against the Bus. Therefore, the liability to pay compensation was denied. 4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :- "1. Whether the accident in question took place, on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1 Paramjit Singh ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled to and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joining of State of Haryana as a necessary party and mis-joinder of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ? OPR 4. Relief." On issue No. 1 a finding was recorded by the learned tribunal that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1-Paramjit, driver of the offending vehicle. On issue No. 2 the claimants were held to be entitled to claim compensation being legal heirs of deceased Prem Pal Singh. Consequently, the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Prem Pal Singh was allowed and a compensation to the tune of Rs. 96,000/- was granted. 5. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has challenged the findings of the learned Tribunal only on issue No. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased Prem Pal Singh to be Rs. 500/-. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that Prem Pal Singh was aged 35 years and was a qualified Doctor. He was having a degree of G.A.M.S. and was doing private practice. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that it was only because of the good practice that he had not opted for a job, which he could have easily got at that time. 6. He was having a degree of G.A.M.S. and was doing private practice. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that it was only because of the good practice that he had not opted for a job, which he could have easily got at that time. 6. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal wrongly rejected the statement made by PW-1 Smt. Jagpali, which, in fact, remained un-rebutted, where she claimed that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/- per month. Out of this income, the deceased used to give Rs. 2,000/- to her for maintenance of the family. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I find force in the contention raised by the counsel that the deceased, who was a Doctor and running a private clinic, could not be said to be earning only Rs. 500/- per month, but his contention that he was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month also cannot be accepted, as admittedly, the deceased was not an income-tax payee. Though there was a clear admission on the part of PW-1 that sufficient record was available with her which could show the actual income of the deceased, being earned by him, but she chose not to produce the same. However, merely because she had failed to produce the record, it could not be said that the monthly income of the deceased was only Rs. 500/-. Once it was shown on record, that the village where the deceased was practising, was having a population of 7,000/-, then his income cannot in any case be assessed less than Rs. 1,200/- per month. Accordingly, the findings recorded on issue No. 2 by the learned Tribunal are modified, and it is held that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month. Keeping in view the size of the family, it can safely be held that out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was being paid to the dependents for their maintenance. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, it would be appropriate to apply a multiplier of 16. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,92,000/- (Rs. one lac ninety two thousands). In addition thereto, they shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards consortium and Rs. 2,000/- as cremation and other expenses. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,92,000/- (Rs. one lac ninety two thousands). In addition thereto, they shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards consortium and Rs. 2,000/- as cremation and other expenses. The compensation payable can be rounded off to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. two lacs). In addition, the claimants shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation @ 9% from the date of claim application till realisation. Resultantly, the FAO No. 69 of 1985 stands allowed in the above terms. FAO No. 68 of 1985 8. In this appeal, the compensation was claimed on account of the injuries suffered by Meenakshi. Though a sum of Rs. one lac was claimed as compensation, but no independent evidence was brought on record by the claimant in support of her claim. Though, it was claimed that she had suffered a fracture for life, however neither any medical nor any other documentary evidence was produced to prove the permanent disability, still the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 500/- as compensation. However, on account of failure of the claimant to produce any evidence on evidence on record, the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. FAO No. 70 of 1985 9. In this appeal, the challenge is to the grant of compensation on account of death of minor daughter Vijay Shree, who was aged about 11/12 years and was a student of 7th class at the time of her death. The compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. forty thousand) was claimed, however, the learned Tribunal was pleased to grant a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. fifteen thousands) as compensation by observing that even though the legislature has not enacted any law for providing compensation on account of death of a minor, still a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. fifteen thousands) was granted as compensation. This view of the learned tribunal cannot be accepted as now it is well settled that the parents are entitled to compensation on account of death of their minor children as they lose love and affection and also future prospects. However, for grant of compensation, assessment has to be made on the basis of guess work. This view of the learned tribunal cannot be accepted as now it is well settled that the parents are entitled to compensation on account of death of their minor children as they lose love and affection and also future prospects. However, for grant of compensation, assessment has to be made on the basis of guess work. The ends of justice will be met if the compensation in this case is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. twenty five thousand). Order accordingly. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in the above terms. In addition, the claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of claim petition till realisation. It is made clear that the compensation would be paid to the claimant-appellant Nos. 2 to 4 as their parents have already expired and claimants are the legal heirs. Appeals allowed.