Judgment Heard Sri B.S. Parihar counsel for the appellants and Sri K.K. Sah counsel for the respondent no. 3. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 4-2-2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellants have filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udham Singh Nagar for grant of compensation on account of death of Chandra Sen in a motor vehicle accident on 18-11-1998 at 9.15AM near Digarpur Chauraha involving Truck No. U.P. 21/8615. The claimants have alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the truck driver. 4. The opposite parties have contested the claim petition. The opposite parties no.1 who is the owner of the truck has denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. 5. The opposite party no.2 the Oriental Insurance Co. has stated in its written statement that at the time of accident the driver of the truck had no valid driving licence and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 6. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the Claims Tribunal: 1. Whether the son of the claimants namely Chandra Sen sustained grievous injuries on 18-11-98 at 8.00AM at Dongarpur Chauraha, Pakwada National High Way 24, P.S. Pakwada, District Moradabad, hitting due to rash and negligent driving by truck Tata 407 No. UP 21/ 8615, and later on he died during treatment? 2. To what amount of compensation is the applicant entitled? 7. The claimants have examined P.w.1 Raja Ram and P.W.2 Ram Lal and P.W.3 Dr. S.K. Mehrotra. Beside this the claimants have filed copy of F.I.R., copy of the post mortem examination, copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle, driving licence and insurance cover note. 8. The opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence. Opposite party no. 3 Insurance Company has filed copy of a letter, inspection report and Original D.L. letter. 9. While deciding issues the Claims Tribunal has held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. The owner of the truck had valid road perm It, registration and the driver of the truck had valid driving licence. 9. While deciding issues the Claims Tribunal has held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. The owner of the truck had valid road perm It, registration and the driver of the truck had valid driving licence. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. So far as the compensation is concerned the Claims Tribunal had held that the deceased was a minor boy and he was not an earning member. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for pecuniary loss, Rs. 2,000/- for her funeral expenses, Rs. 2000/- for love and affection and Rs. 5000/- for loss of estate. Thus a total sum of Rs: 59,000/- was awarded to the claimants as compensation. 10. Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been filed on the grounds that if the income of the deceased had not been specifically pleaded in the petition and the deceased was not earning anything at the time of accident the Tribunal itself was statutorily bound to pay just compensation on the basis of notional income. 11. So far as the findings of the Claims Tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving of the Bus are concerned the same are based on the evidence on record and the same has not been challenged in the appeal. 12. So far as the earning of the deceased is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has held that as the deceased has no income, therefore, no pecuniary loss was caused to the claimants and they are entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- under no-fault scheme only. 13. I am not inclined to accept the view taken by the Claims Tribunal that no pecuniary loss is caused to the claimant on account of death of Chandrasen. In the case where no income of the deceased is proved notional income is taken for assessment of compensation. 14. It is an established principle of law that if a claimant has not specifically pleaded for the grant of certain amount of compensation, even then the Tribunal itself. is statutorily bound to pay just compensation and for that it has to examine facts, evidence and law, as held by the Apex Court in [2003 (2) SCC 274, Nagappa vs. Gurudayl Singh & others. The Apex Court has observed as under: '7. is statutorily bound to pay just compensation and for that it has to examine facts, evidence and law, as held by the Apex Court in [2003 (2) SCC 274, Nagappa vs. Gurudayl Singh & others. The Apex Court has observed as under: '7. Firstly, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act') there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is - it should be 'Just" compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the MV Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (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. Under the proviso to sub-section (1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the claimants are to be imp-leaded as respondents to the application for compensation. The other important part of the said section is sub-section (4) which provides that "the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act': Hence, the Claims Tribunal in an appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed." 15. The Apex Court in Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. V. Northern India Transport Insurance Co. (1971) 1 SCC 785 has held as under: "6. The Apex Court in Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. V. Northern India Transport Insurance Co. (1971) 1 SCC 785 has held as under: "6. Under Section 110-8 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Tribuhal is required to fix such compensation which appears to it to be just. The power given to the tribunal in the matter of fixing compensation under that provision is wide. Even if we assume (we do not propose to decide that question in this case) that compensation under that provision has to be fixed on the same basis as is required to be done under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (Act 13 of 1855), the pecuniary loss to the aggrieved party would depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately but must necessarily be an estimate or even partly a conjecture. The general principle is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever sources come to them by reason of the death, that is, the balance of loss and gain to a dependant by the death must be ascertained. " 16. The Apex Court in the case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender & others AIR 2007 SC 324, while determining the compensation for the death of a girl of 13 years has observed as under: "There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendor of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measure. 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 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. " 17. 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. " 17. Thus it is evidently clear that the learned Claims Tribunal has not determined the compensation on account of the death of Chandrasen, and in view of the settled principle of law he has wrongly assessed the compensation. 18. In the present case the age of the father of deceased is 50 years as stated by Sri Rajaram in his statement before the Claims Tribunal. If the notional income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum, after deduction of one third amount, the annual pecuniary loss comes to Rs. 10,000/-. The claimants are the parents of the deceased; therefore, a multiplier of 10 is to be taken. Thus the compensation comes to Rs. 10,000 x 10 = Rs.1,00,000/-. Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate is to be granted to the claimants. Thus the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 1,07,000/- as compensation along with pendent elite and future interest @ 7.5% per annum. The impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal Udham Singh Nagar is modified to that extent. 19. Consequently the appeal is partly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.