JUDGMENT Heard Sri D.S. Patni, counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajendra Kotilyal, counsel for respondent no.1. 2. This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 3. By the present A.O. filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, appellant has prayed for setting aside the award dated 18-9-2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 1 District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 33 of 2002 Dinesh Prasad Lakhera & another Vs. Arbind Raturi & another, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- has been awarded to the claimants against the Insurance Company along with interest @ 6% per annum. 4. Briefly stated, a claim petition was filed by the claimants - respondents no. 1 and 2 being Motor Accident Claim Case No. 33 of 2002 Dinesh Prasad Lakhera & another Vs. Arbind Raturi & another claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards compensation. 5. According to the claim petition, on 6-8-2002, when Rajat (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) aged about six years was coming home by the right side of the road on foot, all of a sudden a Bus No. U.A - 7C-9311 (hereinafter referred to as Bus in question), which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver crushed the deceased, due to which he succumbed to injuries on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was studying in Class II. It was the only son of the claimants. It has been stated in the claim petition that the Bus in question was insured with United India Insurance Company. 6. Opposite party no. 3 as well as the appellant has contested the claim by filing written statements. 7. Opposite Party No.1 has stated in his written statement that at the time of accident, the driver was driving the Bus in question very carefully and in a moderate speed, but being afraid of a buffalo, along with the deceased, three or four children ran away in the wrong direction, due to which the deceased collided with the tale of the Bus and got injured, therefore, the driver was not at all responsible for the accident. At the time of accident, the driver was having valid driving licence. All the papers were also valid and the Bus in question was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 8. At the time of accident, the driver was having valid driving licence. All the papers were also valid and the Bus in question was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 8. Insurance Company has alleged in its statement that at the time of accident, the driver was not having a valid driving licence and the registration certificate, permit and other important papers were not available with the Bus in question. It has also been stated that the amount claimed is excessive. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, claims tribunal has framed following issues: "1. Whether accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle U.A. 07C/9311 on 6-8-2002 at about 6:30 p.m. at Amrol on Tehri Srinagar Motor Road, Patwari Circle Naldi Akri Distt- Tehri Garhwal resulting death of master Rajat. If so if effect? 2. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle U.A. 07C/9311 was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident as alleged by O.P. No.2 in para 5 of the w.s. ? 3. Whether the Vehicle in question U.A. 07C/9311 was not holding valid Registration, Permit, Fitness as the time of accident as alleged by O.P. / No.2 in para 6 of the w.s. ? 4. To what compensation if any and from whom, the claimants are entitled ?" 10. On behalf of the claimants, Sri Dinesh Prasad has been examined as P.W.1. Claimants have also filed the documentary evidence, per list 7Ga First Information Report, Family Register, Death Certificate and per list 27Ga- Post Mortem Report have been submitted. 11. On behalf of the opposite parties, no one has been examined. Towards documentary evidence, opposite party no.1 per List 26Ga has filed copies of Registration Certificate, Insurance, Permit and Driving Licence of the driver. 12. While deciding the Issue No.1 as to whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle No. U.A.O7C/9311 on 6-8-2002 at about 6:30 p.m. at Amrol on Tehri Srinagar Motor Road, Patwari Circle, Naldi-Akri Distt- Tehri Garhwal resulting death of master Rajat, claims tribunal has placed reliance on oral statements and the document available on the record, where the description of the injury received has been given, which shows that the deceased died due to injuries received in this accident. Claims Tribunal has, thus, recorded a finding that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver the accident occurred. 13. While deciding the Issues No.2 and 3, the claims tribunal has gone through the documents filed by the owner of the Bus, which shows that at the time of accident, the Bus was having valid registration, fitness and insurance and the driver was having valid driving licence. Insurance company has not filed any document in support of his written statement. However, these issues have also been decided against the Insurance Company. 14. While deciding the Issue No.4 regarding compensation, claims tribunal has placed reliance on the documents available on the record, which shows that the Bus in question was insured with United India Insurance Company. Further taking into consideration, the age of the parents of the deceased; father 42 years and mother 35 years and the deceased between 6-7, multiplier of 15 has been selected. The claims tribunal further has taken Rs. 15,000/- as notional income of the deceased and 1/3 has been deducted out of that amount of the personal expenses. Thus annual dependency comes to Rs. 10,000/-. Multiplying with 15, the total amount comes to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Apart from the above, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has further been awarded towards funeral expenses. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- has been awarded to the claimants towards compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. 15. Counsel for the appellant has referrd Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1255, where the Apex Court has observed as under: "8. To appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties we have gone through the relevant material on record. It is by now well-settled that the compensation should be the pecuniary loss to the dependants by the death of a person concerned. While calculating the compensation, annual dependency of the dependants should be determined in terms of the annual loss, according to them, due to the abrupt termination of life. To determine the quantum of compensation, the earnings of the deceased at the time of accident and the amount, which the deceased was spending for the dependants, are the basic determinative factor, the resultant figure should then be multiplied by a 'multiplier'. To determine the quantum of compensation, the earnings of the deceased at the time of accident and the amount, which the deceased was spending for the dependants, are the basic determinative factor, the resultant figure should then be multiplied by a 'multiplier'. The multiplier is applied not for the entire span of life of a person, but it is applied taking into consideration the imponderables in life, immediate availability of the amount to the dependants, the expectancy of the period of dependency of the claimants and so many other factor. Contribution towards the expenses of the family, naturally is in proportion to one's earning capacity. In the present case, the earning of the deceased and consequently the amount which he was spending over the members of his family, i.e. dependency is to be worked out on the basis of the earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident. The mere assertion of the claimants that the deceased would have earned more than Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/ - per month in the span of his lifetime cannot be accepted as legitimate income unless all the relevant facts are proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence before the MACT. The claimants have to prove that the deceased was in a trade where he would have earned more from time to time or that he had special merits or qualifications or opportunities which would have led to an improvement in his income. There is no evidence produced on record by the claimants regarding future prospects of increase of income in the course of employment or business or profession, as the case may be, it is stated that the deceased was about 24 years at the time of the accident. The MACT has accepted Rs. 4,000/- per month, as the earning of the deceased and after deducting Rs. 400/- per month for his pocket expenses, the remaining sum of Rs. 3600/- has been divided into three equal shares, out of which two shares, i.e. Rs. 2400/- per month or Rs. 28,800/- (wrongly mentioned as Rs. 28,000/- in the award), were assessed as loss to both the claimants, who were the claimants are stated to be between 45 and 50 years and accordingly multiplier of 12 was applied. Thus, a sum of Rs. 28,800/- x 12 = Rs. 3,45,600/- was awarded as compensation. In addition thereto a sum of Rs. 28,800/- (wrongly mentioned as Rs. 28,000/- in the award), were assessed as loss to both the claimants, who were the claimants are stated to be between 45 and 50 years and accordingly multiplier of 12 was applied. Thus, a sum of Rs. 28,800/- x 12 = Rs. 3,45,600/- was awarded as compensation. In addition thereto a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been given for funeral expenses and a further amount of Rs. 6,000/- under the head "Loss of Estate". The total sum awardable is Rs. 3,53,600/- but since the deceased was held liable for contributory negligence, the liability of the insurer with whom the bus in question was insured is fixed at 50% i.e. to the extent of Rs. 1,76,800/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim application till the date of payment. The deceased, a young boy of 24 years old was unmarried and the claimants were his father and mother, the dependency has to be calculated on the basis that within two or three years the deceased would have married and raised family and the monthly allowance he was giving to his parents would have been cut down. Thus, in our view, the MACT has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimants. 11. In the present case, as noticed, there is no evidence brought on record by the claimants to show the future prospects of the deceased. This contention, in our view, is not tenable to sustain it." 16. Counsel for the appellant has further referred The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Kalpana & ors. 2007 (1) Supreme 514, where the annual dependency has been taken to be Rs. 36,000/- and thereafter the multiplier has been selected as 13. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been observed as under: "9. In regard to the 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 Accident 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. 34, para 98 states the principle thus : "98. Assessment of damages under the Fatal Accident 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." 17. In the aforesaid cases, the annual dependency has been taken to be Rs. 28,800 and 36,000 respectively and in the present case the annual dependency has been taken to be Rs. 10,000/- only, therefore, the aforesaid case is quite different with the present case. 18. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 324, the Apex Court has observed as under: "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. The determination of damages for 1055 of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and r 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. 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 1055 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) AC 1. 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. 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 estimate basis. 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 estimate 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." 19. The Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. S. Rajapriya & Ors. 2005 (4) Supreme 87, has observed as under: "8. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependents is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together. 9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year's purchase. 10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. 11 . 10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. 11 . There were two methods adopted to determine and for calculation of compensation in fatal accident actions, the first the multiplier mentioned in Davies case (supra and the second in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. (1951 (2) All E'R 448 12. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regarding to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be held to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. 13. The considerations generally relevant in the selection of multiplicand and multiplier were adverted to by Lord Diplock in his speech in Mallett v. Mc Mongle (1969 (2) All ER 178) where the deceased was aged 25 and left behind his widow of about the same age and three minor children. On the question of selection of multiplicand Lord Diplock observed: 'The starting point in any estimate of the amount of the dependency is annual value of the material benefits provided for the dependants out of the earnings of the deceased at the date of his death. But..... there are many factors which might have led to variations up or down in the future. His earnings might have increased and with them the amount provided by him for his dependants. They might have diminished with a recession in trade or he might have had spells or unemployment. As his children grew up and became independent the proportion of his earnings spent on his dependants would have been likely to fall. His earnings might have increased and with them the amount provided by him for his dependants. They might have diminished with a recession in trade or he might have had spells or unemployment. As his children grew up and became independent the proportion of his earnings spent on his dependants would have been likely to fall. But in considering the effect to be given in the award of damages to possible variations in the dependency there are two factors to be borne in mind. The first is that the more remote in the future is the anticipated change the less confidence there can be in the chances of its occurring and the smaller the allowance to be made for it in the assessment. The second is that as a matter of the arithmetic of the calculation of present value, the later the change takes place the less will be its effect upon the total award of damages. Thus at interest rates of 4 1/2% the present value of an annuity for 20 years of which the first ten years are at $100 per annum and the second ten years at $200 per annum, is about 12 years' purchase of the arithmetic average annuity of $150 per annum, whereas if the first ten years are at $200 per annum and the second ten years at $100 per annum the present value is about 14years' purchase of the arithmetical mean of $ 150 per annum. If therefore the chances of variations in the dependency are to be reflected in the multiplicand of which the years' purchase is the multiplier, variations in the dependency which are not expected to take place until after ten years should have only a relatively small effect in increasing or diminishing the 'dependency used for the purpose of assessing the damages." 20. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the award passed by the claims tribunal. The appeal is dismissed. Amount if any deposited in this Court shall be transferred to the claims tribunal and thereafter the same shall be disbursed between the claimants. 21. Consequently, Appeal is dismissed with costs.