JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed by the claimant appellant against the Judgment and Award dated 16.12.1994 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banner in MACT Case No.54/1993 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and has awarded a sum of Rs. 53,176/- as compensation payable severally and jointly against non-claimants No.1 to 3. 2. Brief facts of this case, are that on 10.05.1993, at about 3.00 P.M. Purkha Ram was going from "Nagana Tala (Bandra)" to "Chheetar-ka-par" in Tractor-Trolley No. RRQ 8589 which was being driven by its driver Chetan Ram rashly and negligently at a high speed, as a result of which, Purkha Ram fell down from the trolley and sustained injuries on his persons. The injured person was brought to the Government Hospital, Banner where he got admitted and remained admitted from 10.05.1993 to 18.05.1993, due to these injuries Purkha Rum died on 18.05.1993, at that time he was aged 10-11 years old. It is alleged that Tractor Trolley was insured with the respondent-non-claimant No.3. United India Insurance Company and the owner of the Tractor Trolley was Roopa Ram at the time of accident. It was further alleged that the deceased Purkha Ram was studying in sixth standard and he used to earn Rs. 500/- per month by doing the work at the shop of Poonma Ram. It was stated that due to his untimely death in accident the parents suffered a huge loss of income as well as suffered loss of love, affection and service. A report of the accident was lodged at P.S. Banner against non-claimant No.1 Chetan Ram for the offences under Secs, 279, 304-A, IPC and Sec.77 of the M.V. Act, The claim petition was filed by the father and mother of the deceased on various heads claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,77,710/- in the Court of MACT, Barmer. 3. After service of notices, non-claimants No.1 and 2, driver and owner of the vehicle, filed a joint reply to the claim petition denying all the allegations made in the claim petition. It was further stated in the reply that the said tractor was insured with United Insurance Company, therefore, in case any situation arises for the payment of compensation the Insurance Company is responsible. 4. A reply to the claim petition was also filed on behalf of non-claimant No.3-United India Insurance Co. It was further stated in the reply that the said tractor was insured with United Insurance Company, therefore, in case any situation arises for the payment of compensation the Insurance Company is responsible. 4. A reply to the claim petition was also filed on behalf of non-claimant No.3-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in which it was admitted that the said Tractor No. MDM 2284 was insured with their company, but trolly was not insured. In reply it was submitted that the deceased was travelling in the trolly as gratuitous passenger but the tractor trolley was not meant for carrying passengers, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the appellants and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. In reply it was submitted that the deceased was travelling in the trolly as gratuitous passenger but the tractor trolley was not meant for carrying passengers, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the appellants and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following relevant issues were framed:- " 1- D;k vizkFkhZ la0 1 Jh psrujke us fnukad 10-05-1993 dks fnu ds rhu cts Nhrj dk ikj tkus okys jkLrs ij xkao ckanjk ls 4 fdyksehVj nwj ckanjk ls 4 fdyksehVj nwj ckanjk dh rjQ V~sDVj ua0 ,e0Mh0,e0 2284 dks rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pyk;k ftlds dkj.k e`rd iqj[kkjke uhps fxjus ls mldh e`R;q gks xbZA 2- D;k izkFkhZx.k {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa 10]77]750@& :i;s izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS vkSj ;fn gka rks fdlls o fdruh fdruh jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA 3- D;k rFkkdfFkr nq?kZVuk ls iwoZ gh vizkFkhZ la0 2 ( [k ) us mijksDr uEcj dk V~sDVj fodz; i= ds tfj;s vizkFkhZ la0 2 ( d ) dks fodz; dj fn;k Fkk] blfy, vizkFkhZ la0 2 ( [k ) dh {kfriwfrZ vnk djus dh ftEesnkjh ugha gSA 4- D;k e`rd Jh iqj[kkjke dh e`R;q Vs~DVj dh nq?kZVuk ls ugha gksdj isM+ ls fxjus ds dkj.k gqbZ gS blfy, vizkFkhZ la0 3 dk {kfriwfrZ vnk djus dk mRrjnkf;Ro ugha gSA 5- D;k vizkFkhZ la0 3 }kjk rFkkdfFkr V~sDVj dk chek d`f"k dk;Z ds fy, gh fd;k x;k Fkk ijUrq mlesa ckjkr dh lokfj;sa cSBkdj chek ikWfylh dh 'krksZa dk mYy?kau fd;k gS] ftlls foizkFkhZ ua0 3 {kfriwfrZ ds fy, ftEesokj ugha gSA 6- D;k e`rd Jh iqj[kkjke ,d vkeaf=r ;k=h Fkk] blfy, vizkFkhZ la0 3 dk {kfriwfr vnk djus dk dksbZ mRrjnkf;Ro ugha gSA 7- D;k V~sDVj V~ksyh dk chek vizkFkhZ la0 3 ds ;gka fd;k gqvk ugha Fkk] blfy;s vizkFkhZ la0 3 dk {kfriwfrZ vnk djus dk dksbZ mRrjnkf;Ro ugha gSA 8- D;k vizkFkhZ Jh xksikjke Vs~DVj o V~ksyh dk okLrfod ekfyd ugha gS] D;k okLrfor ekfyd dks i{kdkj cuk;s fcuk vizkFkhZ la0 3 {kfriwfrZ vnk djus ds fy, mRrjnk;h ugha gSA 9- D;k vizkFkhZ la0 1 Jh psru ds ikl nq?kZVuk ds le; okgu pykus dk oS| ykblsal ugha Fkk rFkk eksVj okgu fu;eksa ds rgr viuk okgu ugha pyk jgk Fkk] blfy, vizkFkhZ la0 3 dk {kfriwfrZ vnk djus dk mRrjnkf;Ro ugha gSA 10- D;k izkFkhZx.k us vizkFkhZ la0 3 ds fo:) >wBk Dyse is'k fd;k gS] blfyt vizkFkhZ la0 3 fo'ks"k [kpsZ ds :i esa vizkFkhZx.k ls 1000@& :i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 11- vuqrks"kA " 6. During, the trial of the case, from the claimant's side AW-1 Arjun Ram, AW-2 Kistoora Ram and AW-3 Vardha and AW 4 Poorma Ram were examined and relevant documents Ex.1 to Ex.38 were got exhibited. From the side of non-claimants, no evidence was led. 7. After hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said Tractor Trolley driven by Chetan Ram whereby the Purkha Ram sustained grievous injuries on his person resulting in his death. The learned Tribunal further turned down the other objections taken by the Insurance Company appellant and after considering the material, awarded a sum of compensation of Rs. 53,176 plus interest as stated above to the claimant-appellants, holding respondents jointly and severally responsible for the payment. 8. The claimant-appellant, being dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 16.12.1994 in respect of death of Purkha Ram, has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Notice of appeal was given to respondents, record of the case was called. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and carefully gone through the material available on record. It was also stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Insurance Company also filed an appeal against the same judgment and award before this Court, that was registered as Civil Misc. Appeal No. 172/1995 and after hearing both the parties the said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.05.1995. This fact was not disputed by the learned counsel of the Insurance Company, during the course of arguments. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant appellant submitted that the learned lower Court has not properly appreciated and considered the facts, while determining the quantum of compensation. Thus the awarded compensation is meagre one that requires modification. Learned counsel further contended that the deceased was studying in sixth standard at the time of accident and there was a bright future prospect. The deceased was also working, along with studies, at the shop of Poorma Ram he was earning Rs. 500/- per month but the learned Court has not considered the future prospect of the deceased, as well as the present earning of the deceased and in an arbitrary manner, awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. The deceased was also working, along with studies, at the shop of Poorma Ram he was earning Rs. 500/- per month but the learned Court has not considered the future prospect of the deceased, as well as the present earning of the deceased and in an arbitrary manner, awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 40,000/- under the head 'Loss of Dependency. It is also contended that the deceased was their son and due to untimely death, they suffered great mental agony and shock but the Tribunal has awarded a nominal amount of Rs. 10,000/- under this head. Likewise also it is established from the record that the deceased remained under treatment in hospital from 10.05.1993 to 18.05.1993. Heavy expenses were incurred during treatment to save his life, but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1476/- of medicine in that respect. On the basis of these sub-missions it was prayed that reasonable amount be determined and awarded amount be modified and appeal may be allowed. 11. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents, refuted the contentions placed by the appellant's side and submitted that though the appeal filed by the Insurance Company has been dismissed but it is a fact that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation as the deceased was travelling in tractor trolly that was not meant for carrying passengers. It is also contended that the learned lower Court has awarded just and reasonable compensation and there is no scope for further enhancement and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the findings on each issue and the conclusion drawn. 13. The main question arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the awarded compensation is not adequate just and reasonable and it requires enhancement? So far as the findings given by the learned Tribunal with regard to accident is concerned, I have perused the findings. The learned Tribunal has discussed the material in that respect; and rightly held that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver Chetan Ram. That finding is deserved to be maintained and nobody has challenged that finding in appeal. The learned Tribunal has discussed the material in that respect; and rightly held that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver Chetan Ram. That finding is deserved to be maintained and nobody has challenged that finding in appeal. The learned Tribunal has also rightly, discarded the other objections taken by the Insurance Company and at present there is no scope to consider again those contentions in that respect. Thus, the findings in that respect are also maintained. But the learned Tribunal, while discussing the material with regard to determining the quantum of compensation, learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the material available on record. In this respect the father of the deceased has appeared in evidence and he has reiterated his version that his son was studying in sixth Standard and he was also working at the shop of Poorma Ram and he was earning Rs. 500/-. This fact is also corroborated by A/W 2 Kistura Ram that the deceased was working at the shop of Poorma Ram and was getting Rs. 500/- per month. On the basis of material available on record, the Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased to be 10-11 years at the time of accident. Further on the material available on record, the learned Tribunal did not find income of the deceased proved, as stated, therefore, awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/- without determining the income or the notional income and without determining any loss of dependency. Therefore, the amount determined by the learned Tribunal in this respect is not just and reasonable. Though from the side of appellants, income of the deceased has not been proved but it was also considerable material that at time of accident deceased was studying, in further he would have earned more, his age as determined by the Tribunal, was 10-11 years. In these circumstances, considering the fact that deceased was a male issue and he was studying, there were expectations of bright future and if deceased had not died in accident, claimants would have been benefited by the income of the deceased. Taking into consideration all these Circumstances, I consider that instead of Rs. 40,000/- determined for the loss of dependency by the Tribunal, the amount of Rs.90,000/- will be appropriate to determine the loss of dependency. Further the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. Taking into consideration all these Circumstances, I consider that instead of Rs. 40,000/- determined for the loss of dependency by the Tribunal, the amount of Rs.90,000/- will be appropriate to determine the loss of dependency. Further the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 10,000/- for mental shock and agony. Considering the facts the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-. Likewise, it has come on record that the deceased remained admitted in the hospital for some time and it can be inferred that during that period the claimants have suffered expenses. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1,476/- but considering the facts, in total Rs. 5,000/- is awarded in that respect. Thus, the total, amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,15,000/- thus the awarded compensation amount is enhanced by Rs. 61,824/- to Rs. 1,15,000/- that is just and reasonable. The claimants will also get interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on this amount from the date of presenting claim petition. 14. 1 have also considered the responsibility for paying the enhanced amount of compensation. As the appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the said judgment and award has been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 12.05.1995 the learned Tribunal has fixed the joint and several responsibility to the owner and Insurance Company to pay compensation. That has been confirmed by this Court as the appeal filed by the Insurance Company has been dismissed. Thus, for the payment of the enhanced amount, driver, owner and the Insurance Company of the vehicle are held jointly and severally responsible to pay the compensation to the claimant. The contentions raised by insurer are now not sustainable. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and it is directed that the Insurance Company should pay the enhanced amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Further, Insurance Company is directed to make payment within two months from the date of order on deposit before the learned Tribunal, failing which the claimant will be entitled to start recovery proceedings against the driver, owner and the Insurance Company. Subject to above modifications, the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal is confirmed, the amount of compensation of Rs. 53,176/- is enhanced to Rs. 1,15,000/-. Subject to above modifications, the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal is confirmed, the amount of compensation of Rs. 53,176/- is enhanced to Rs. 1,15,000/-. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******