Judgment - Heard Sri Lalit Sharma, counsel for the appellants and Sri D.S. Patni, counsel for the respondent no. 3. Present appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of the compensation. 2. By the present A.O. filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, appellant has prayed for enhancement of the award dated 9-8-2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 208 of 2003 Smt. Shalini Singh and another Vs. Commandant Special Security Bureau IVth Ballalion and others, whereby the claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,53,000/" towards compensation along with interest 6% per annum. 3. Briefly stated, a claim petition was filed by the claimants being M.A.C.P. No. 208 of 2003 Smt. Shalini Singh and another Vs. Commandant Special Security Bureau IVth Ballalion and others claiming a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- towards compensation. 4. According to the claimants, on 19-3-2003 at about 8.30 p.m. Rishabh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was going to Jaspur from Udham Singh Nagar along with his family by Car No. U.P. 25K 4028, as soon as they reached near Ganeshpur Chaukey, a truck No. H.P. - 14-8356 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed the Car of the deceased. In this accident, the deceased and his father died on the spot and other family members received injuries. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 51/2 years of age and was a good student. 5. Opposite parties no. 1 and 2 have filed a joint written statement, wherein it has been stated that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven in a moderate speed having valid registration certificate. It has been stated that the car of the deceased was being driven rashly and negligently and at the time of accident, Mr. Dr. Rajeev Kumar Singh was using mobile phone and was driving the Car with one hand due to which the accident occurred. It has been stated that the car of the deceased was being driven rashly and negligently and at the time of accident, Mr. Dr. Rajeev Kumar Singh was using mobile phone and was driving the Car with one hand due to which the accident occurred. Opposite parties have also stated that at the date of occurrence, the offending vehicle was coming on the prescribed way from Dharampur, District Solan to S.S.B. Palia Kalan, District Lakhimpur Khiri (Uttar Pradesh) and the accident occurred on the said way and at the time of accident, the driver was holding a valid driving licence and on the date of occurrence, the offending vehicle had been declared fit by the C.E.OA S.S.B. Department, New Delhi It has also been stated that the amount claimed by the claimants is excessive and without any basis. 6. Insurance Company of the Car has submitted that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the Car, but it occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the claim tribunal has framed following issues: "1. Whether the said accident occurred on 19-3-2003 at about 8.30 a.m. near Ganeshpur Chaukey Kelakhera, P.S. Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. HP-14-8356, in which Rishabh Kumar Singh died? If yes, its effect? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation, if yes from whom? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any other relief ?" 8. On behalf of the claimants, Dr. Hansa Singh has been examined as P.W.1 and Smt. Shalini as P.W. 2. Towards documentary evidence, per list 6Ga six documents Le. First Information Report, Insurance Cover Note, Registration Certificate, Driving Licence, post mortem report and marksheet of the deceased have been filed. 9. On behalf of the opposite parties no. 1 and 2, one Jagir Chand has been examined. Opposite Parties NO.1 and 2 per list 20Ga have filed three documents i.e. copies of Report of Court of Inquiry, Driving Licence and Registration Certificate. 10. 9. On behalf of the opposite parties no. 1 and 2, one Jagir Chand has been examined. Opposite Parties NO.1 and 2 per list 20Ga have filed three documents i.e. copies of Report of Court of Inquiry, Driving Licence and Registration Certificate. 10. While deciding the Issues NO.1 as to whether the said accident occurred on 193-2003 at about 8.30 a.m. near Ganeshpur Chaukey, Kelakhera, P.S. Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. HP-14-8356, in which Rishabh Kumar Singh died? If yes, its effect, the claims tribunal has relied upon the statement of Dr. Hansa Devi - P.W.1, who is the ocular witness of the incident. She has stated that she has seen the occurrence from the distance of 50 metres as she was coming by her Car to Bajpur. She has stated in her statement that when Dr. Rajeev Kumar was going to Kashipur along with his family by Car No. UP. 25K-4028, a Truck No. H.P. 14-8356, which was coming from the opposite direction and being driven rashly and negligently dashed the Car of the deceased with full force. In this accident, Dr. Rajeev Kumar and his son of 5 years of age died and they got the first information report lodged at Police Chaukey Kelakhera, P.S. Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar at 9.15 a.m. In the cross examination she has stated that she was at a distance of 50 metres when the accident took place and the accident had occurred by the side of the driver-seat and they stayed at the place of occurrence upto 30 minutes and thereafter, they got the report lodged at Police Chaukey Kelakhera. She has stated in her statement that at the time of accident, Rajeev Kumar father of the deceased was driving the vehicle by his side and was not talking on mobile phone, but the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck No. HP-14-8356. Smt. Shalini Singh (mother of the deceased) P.W.2 is also an ocular witness, she has also stated the same fact and has submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, in which his son Rishabh Singh and husband-Rajeev Kumar Singh died. Smt. Shalini Singh (mother of the deceased) P.W.2 is also an ocular witness, she has also stated the same fact and has submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, in which his son Rishabh Singh and husband-Rajeev Kumar Singh died. In the cross-examination, she has denied the fact that at the time of accident, Rajeev Kumar was talking on mobile phone and has stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. The claims tribunal has disbelieved the statement of Jagir Singh as both the ocular witnesses have stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, The claims tribunal has also taken into consideration the First Information Report and Post Mortem Report of the deceased and' the marksheet of the deceased. Thus, the claims tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. HP-14-8356, in which Rajeev Kumar Singh and his son Rishabh Singh (deceased) died and Smt. Shalini Singh, five month-daughter and servant got injured. 11. While deciding the Issues No.2 and 3 as to whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation, if yes from whom and as to whether the claimants are entitled to get any other relief, the claims tribunal, the claims tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 6 years after relying upon the post mortem report and has taken Rs. 15,000/- per annum as notional income of the deceased. Thereafter 1/3rd of personal expenses has been deducted from the annual income and thereafter, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 10,000/-. For selecting the multiplier, the claims tribunal has taken into consideration the age of the deceased, mother of the deceased, sister of the deceased and thereafter, selected multiplier of 15. Multiplying the annual dependency with 15, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,50,000/ -. Apart from that, the claims tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 1,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 1,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, the claims tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,53,000/- to the claimants towards compensation along with simple interest @ 6% per annum. 1,50,000/ -. Apart from that, the claims tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 1,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 1,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, the claims tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,53,000/- to the claimants towards compensation along with simple interest @ 6% per annum. The claims tribunal has poured the liability to pay compensation on the opposite party nO.2-Commandant Special Security Bureau, 4th Battalion, Palian Kalan, District Lakhimpur Khiri, U.P. 12. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the multiplier should be 17 in place of 15 as per Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has also been stated that the interest should be 12% in place of 6% per month. 13. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender & Ors. 2006 (8) Supreme 870, it has been observed as under: "7. In Mallett v. Mc Monagle 1970 (AC) 166, Lord Diplock analysed in detail the uncertainties which arise at various stages in making a rational estimate and practical ways of dealing with them. In Davies v. Taylor (1974)AC 207, it was held that the Court, in looking at future uncertain events, does not decide whether on balance one thing is more likely to happen than another, but merely puts a value on the chances. A possibility may be ignored if it is slight and remote. Any method of calculation is subordinate to the necessity for compensating the real loss. But a .. practical approach to the calculation of the damages has been stated by Lord W right in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Colleries Ltd. (1942) 1 All ER 657 in the following words: "The starting point is the amount of wages which the deceased was earning, the ascertainment of which to some extent may depend on the regularity of his employment. Then there is an estimate of how much was required to be spent for his own personal and living expenses. The balance will give a datum or basic figure which will generally be turned into a lump sum by taking a certain number of years' purchase." 9. 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 splendour of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measure. 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 splendour 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 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. 10. In case of death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child's lifetime. But this will not necessary bar the parents' claim and prospective loss will find 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 Rly. V. Jenkins (1913)AC1. 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." (See Lata Wathawa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2001 (8) SCC 197). 11. This Court in Lata Wathwa's case (supra) while computing compensation made distinction between deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. 12. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2001 (8) SCC 197). 11. This Court in Lata Wathwa's case (supra) while computing compensation made distinction between deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. 12. 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." 14. In Managing Director, T.N.S. T. C. Vs. Sripriya and others [2007(67) ALR 813J Supreme Court, the Apex Court has observed as under: "10. In regard to choice of the multiplicand the Halsbury's Laws of England in Vol. 34, para 98 states the principle thus: "98. Assessment of damages under the fatal Accidents Act, 1976. - The Courts have evolved a method for calculating the amount of pecuniary benefit that dependants could reasonably expect to have received from the deceased in the future. First the annual value to the dependants of those benefits (the multiplicand) is assessed. In the ordinary case of the death of a wage-earner that figure is arrived at by deducting from the wages the estimated amount of his own personal and living expenses. The assessment is split into two parts. The first part comprises damages for-the period between death and trial. The multiplicand is multiplied by the number of years which have elapsed between those two dates. Interest at one-half the short-term investment rate is also awarded on that multiplicand. The second part is damages for the period from the trial onwards. For that period, the number of years which have based on the number of years that the expectancy would probably have lasted; central to that calculation is the probable length of the deceased's working life at the date of death." . 15. Considering the age of the deceased appropriate multiplier would be 12. For that period, the number of years which have based on the number of years that the expectancy would probably have lasted; central to that calculation is the probable length of the deceased's working life at the date of death." . 15. Considering the age of the deceased appropriate multiplier would be 12. The income fixed by the Tribunal and the deduction for personal expenses do not warrant any interference. Worked out on that basis, the entitlement of the loss of income is Rs. 5,76,000. The other expenses awarded unaltered. In other words, total entitlement of the claimant is fixed at Rs. 6,00,000. It would be appropriate to fix the rate of interest at 7.5% instead of 9% as done by the Tribunal and maintained by the High Court." 15. In view of the aforesaid judgment and the prayer made by the counsel for the appellant, the award dated 9-8-2005 passed by the Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar is modified to this extent that the annual dependency of Rs. 10,000/- is multiplied with 17. Thus, the amount of compensation is worked out to Rs. 1,70,000/-. Apart from that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded towards compensation. The interest will be payable at the rate of 7.5% per annum in view of the judgment of Managing Director, T.N.S. T.C., Vs. Sripriya and others [2007(67) ALR 813] Supreme Court. 16. Thus, the claimants will be entitled to get a total sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- instead of 1,53,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% instead of 6% per annum. 17. Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed with costs.