JUDGMENT M. VENUGOPAL, J. Challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge) Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P. No. 1122 of 2002 dated 8.8.2003 awarding a total compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition to till the date of payment. 2. The appellant/second respondent insurance company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the claim are as follows: Respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased boy Veeramanikandan aged 3 years. Respondents 1 and 2/claimants are Srilankan refugees. They had three female children and one male child by name Veeramanikandan since deceased. The second respondent/claimant after the birth, of Veeramanikandan (male child) had undergone family planning operation on 25.5.2000. The deceased child Veeramanikandan prior to the accident was hale and healthy. 4. On 30.5.2002 at about 8.00 p.m. in the night, the deceased Veeramanikandan along with his mother after returning from the shop in Thalaiyuthu Rajavallipuram Main Road opposite to Srilankan refugee camp was standing opposite to the bus stop on the left side of the road. At that time, the, bus belonging to the third respondent bearing Regn. No. TN-72-2313 was driven by its driver in fast speed and negligently and it dashed against the said Veeramanikandan. As a result there of, the said Veeramanikandan was seriously injured and while he was taken to the hospital on the way, he died. The said deceased Veeramanikandan was not responsible in any way for the accident. The third respondent/first respondent's driver's act of driving the vehicle in fast speed and negligently were responsible for the cause of the accident. 5. Respondents 1 and 2/claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- towards permanent loss of income. The respondents/claimants had lost their sole male heir and in this regard, they claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Towards funeral expenses, they claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. Towards pain and sufferings, they claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. In all, the claimants are entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 15,20,000/- in law. However, they are satisfied with a restricted claim of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 6. The offending bus bearing Regn. 3,00,000/-. Towards funeral expenses, they claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. Towards pain and sufferings, they claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. In all, the claimants are entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 15,20,000/- in law. However, they are satisfied with a restricted claim of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 6. The offending bus bearing Regn. No. TN-72-2313 at the time of accident was insured with the appellant/second respondent insurance company. The Thalaiyuthu Police have registered a criminal case Cr. No. 157 of 2002 under section 304(A) IPC against the third respondent/first respondent's driver before the Judicial Magistrate Court No. IV, Tirunelveli and the same is pending. 7. The appellant/second respondent insurance company has taken a plea that the third respondent/first respondent's driver was no way responsible for the accident and that the claimants have to prove the negligence on the part of the third respondent/first respondent's driver and that the claimants will have to establish that the third respondent/first respondent is the owner of the offending bus as well as vehicle involved in the accident has a valid permit and that the vehicle has been insured with the appellant/insurance company at the time of accident. 8. Before the Tribunal on the side of respondents 1 and 2/claimants, witnesses P.W.1 and 2 were examined and Exhibit P-1 to P-5 were marked. On the side of the appellant/insurance company and on the side of the third respondent/first respondent, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 9. After contest, the Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has granted a total compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/- together with interest at 9% from the date of filing of the petition to till the date of payment. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company urges before this Court that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that there were lot of uncertainties in the case of child aged three years and by the time, the child completed the studies and start earning the parent would have been considerable old and hence, the compensation, can only be granted for loss of expectation of life and that in any event, the award of the Tribunal is against the probabilities of the case and weight of evidence available on record and therefore, prays for allowing the appeal in the interest of justice. 11. 11. Contending contra, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the Tribunal has adduced cogent and convincing reason in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. etc. and that the same need not be interfered with by this Court. 12. This Court has heard the learned counsel appeared for either parties and noticed their rival contentions. 13. To prove negligence, the second respondent/second claimant has self-examined as P.W.1 and has deposed that she was aware about the happening of the accident and that on 30.5.2002 at about 8.00 p.m. in the night, she along with her son went to the shop opposite to the camp while they were standing near the sand road, and at that time, in Thalaiyuthu Rajavallipuram Main Road in the direction of west to east, the bus bearing Regn. No. TN-72-2313 came in fast speed and dashed against her son, as a result of which, her son suffered serious injury and that, he died on the way, while being taken to the High Ground hospital and that the bus driver was responsible for causing the accident. 14. In Exhibit P-1, F.I.R, the informant name is mentioned as Kodimalar who is none other than P.W.1/second respondent/second claimant in the case. A perusal of Exhibit P-1 F.I.R indicates that Ebenezar driver of the A.R.G. Town bus bearing Regn. No. TN-72-2313 has been shown as an accused in Thalaiyuthu Police station cr. No. 157 of 2002 under section 304(A) IPC. More over, it transpires from Exhibit P-1 F.I.R. that on 30.5.2002 at about 8.00 p.m. in the night when P.W.1 Kodimalar along with her son has gone to the shop opposite to the camp and while returning to the refugee camp at that time, A.R.G. Town bus bearing Regn. No. TN-72-2313 was driven by its driver Ebenazar S/o. Thavamani, C.M.S. Koil Street, Alwarneri, negligently and in high speed, dashed against her son who was standing on the left side of the road and as a result of which, he fell down and the bus ran over her son and went on the eastern side and after seeing the occurrence, her husband, Amirthalingam, first respondent/first claimant and one Pitchaiyandi S/o. Murugan came running and lifted her son and that for treatment, her son was taken to the high ground hospital in a car, but died on the way to the hospital. 15. 15. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.1 Kodimalar, (second respondent/second claimant) tendered before the Tribunal coincides with the averments found in Exhibit P-1 F.I.R. As a matter of fact, P.W.1 Kodimalar, second respondent/second claimant has vividly spoken in her evidence about the manner and happening of the occurrence and the same is unassailable and therefore, this Court accepts her evidence as a reliable and trustworthy one because of its convincing nature. In deed, Exhibit P-2 charge sheet filed by Thalaiyuthu Inspector of Police dated 3.6.2002 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No. IV, Tirunelveli shows that the driver of the offending bus, Ebenezar has been proceeded under section 304(A) IPC. Therefore, in view of the unimpeachable evidence of P.W.1 Kodimalar/second claimant on record in regard to manner and happening of the occurrence, this Court is of the considered view that the accident has taken place because of the fast speed and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Regn. No. TN-72-2313 and that the said driver of the bus, Ebenezar is squarely and solely responsible for the causing of the accident and the point is answered accordingly. 16. In regard to the quantum to be awarded, it is pertinent to point out that P.W.1 Kodimalar, (second claimant) in her evidence has stated that her deceased son Veeramanikandan at the time of his death involving in the accident was reading at Refugee Camp School in kinder garden class and that he was three years old and her elder daughter was aged 14, reading 9th standard and her second daughter was reading in 6th standard and after the birth of her son deceased Veeramanikandan she did undergo Family Planning Operation. 17. P.W.2 Bhakiayanathan, in his evidence has stated that P.W.1 Kodimalar/second claimant has undergone family planning operation as per xerox copy of record Exhibit P-5. In Exhibit P-3 Postmortem certificate in respect of deceased child Veeramanikandan, the doctor has opined that the cause of death as "The deceased would appear to have died or shook and haemorrhage due to multiple Injuries." In Exhibit P-3-Postmortem certificate, the age of the deceased child Veera- manikandan is mentioned as 3 years. In Exhibit P-3 Postmortem certificate in respect of deceased child Veeramanikandan, the doctor has opined that the cause of death as "The deceased would appear to have died or shook and haemorrhage due to multiple Injuries." In Exhibit P-3-Postmortem certificate, the age of the deceased child Veera- manikandan is mentioned as 3 years. In the absence of birth certificate to show the exact age of the deceased Veeramanikandan at the time, this Court by placing reliance on Exhibit P-3 postmortem certificate dated 31.5.2002 determines the age of the deceased Veeramanikandan at the time of his death as 3 years. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company cites the decision, Kaushalya Devi v. Shri Karan Arora and Others in 2007 (3) TAC 16 (SC) at para 10 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held inter alia that "In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties around, 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 is 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 learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/claimants relies on the decision 2005 ACJ 99 at page 100, wherein it is held that "for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the second schedule, he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- must be taken as the income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 2,25,000/-." 20. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/claimants presses into service another decision (2004) 4 MLJ 251 : 2004 (4) CTC 686 wherein, this Court has held that at p. 254 of MLJ: "Minor girl would have contributed to family on attaining majority and would have continued to do so until 24 years when she would have normally got married and Multiplier of 6 (24-18) would be just and proper and fixing contribution at Rs. 2,000/- per month notionally, compensation of Rs. 2,000/- per month notionally, compensation of Rs. 1,44,000/- together with Rs. 15,000/- towards love and affection and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses ordered." 21. This Court aptly points out the decision III (2007) ACC 663 and 664 wherein this Court held as follows: "It may be true that a child of one year age cannot be expected to earn any income and it would be difficult to imagine as to what he would have been, in case he did not meet with the fatal accident. Such questions are in realm of speculation. But, it must be recognized that in the matter of awarding compensation, the issue cannot be approached in strict terms of commerce or calculations. Several contingencies have to be taken into account and ultimately, a decent balance needs to be maintained between the conflicting factors. Though not from the stand point view of income, the tortuous liability in such cases needs to be fixed on the touchstone of the mental agency for the parents and the future dependency upon the child. It was in this context that Parliament had evolved the formula in the form of Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'). For the persons below age of 15, multiplier 15' was made applicable and where the notional income is incapable of being determined for any individual, it was fixed at Rs. 15,000/- per year. A future indication was made to the effect that one third must be deducted out of it. In the instant case, the Tribunal had meticulously followed Second Schedule appended to the Act by applying the multiplier 15' and taking the annual income of the deceased child at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Hence, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal and resultantly, the award of Rs. 1,54,500/- has been upheld." 22. Further, this Court also cites the decision 2003 ACJ 1102 wherein, it is inter alia observed that "Notional income can be assumed in both cases where the persons concerned are not actually earning or have not reached the age of earning and that the second schedule to Section 163-A does not suffer from any vice which can persuade a Court to ignore or discard it altogether for the death of a child of aged 4 years, the award of Rs. 1,50,000/- granted by the Tribunal to the father, mother and brother has been upheld in appeal, in the absence of any appeal for enhancement." 23. In the instant case on hand, respondents 1 and 2/claimants have made a restricted claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Veeramanikandan aged 3 years. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has fixed the deceased Veeramanikandan's annual income as Rs. 12,000/- and as arrived at a figure of Rs. 2,40,000/- as compensation. Towards personal expenses of the deceased Veeramanikandan, the Tribunal has deducted a sum of Rs. 80,000/- being 1/3rd of Rs. 2,40,000/-. Therefore, it has determined the compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- to be received by respondents 1 and 2/claimants. Apart from the aforesaid sum, it has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- as total compensation payable to respondents 1 and 2/claimants by the third respondent/first respondent and the appellant/second respondent jointly and severally. 24. In fact, out of the sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- awarded as compensation by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has determined the share of respondents 1 and 2/claimants as Rs. 81,000/-each. Therefore, on an over all facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into fact notional income can be assumed in cases where the individual concerned are not actually earning or have not reached the age of earning and since, this Court cannot ignore or discard in toto, the Second Schedule of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act this Court comes to the inevitable conclusion that the compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/- as determined by the Tribunal together with interest at 9% p. a. does not require any interference in the hands of this Court and this Court holds that the said sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Sixty Two Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal is prudent, fair and equitable too. 25. This Court in C.M.P. (MD) No. 2061 of 2004 has passed an order on 3.12.2004 permitting respondents 1 and 2/claimants to withdraw 50% of the award amount with accrued interest deposited to the credit of M.CO.P. No. 1122 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge) Tirunelveli. 25. This Court in C.M.P. (MD) No. 2061 of 2004 has passed an order on 3.12.2004 permitting respondents 1 and 2/claimants to withdraw 50% of the award amount with accrued interest deposited to the credit of M.CO.P. No. 1122 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge) Tirunelveli. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed for the reasons assigned by this Court in this appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the award dated 8.8.2003 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 1122 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge) Tirunelveli is affirmed. Consequently, respondents 1 and 2/claimants are directed to receive the balance award amount from the Tribunal by filing necessary application as per Civil Rules of Practice in the manner known to law. The Tribunal is to ensure proper payment of Court fee by the first and second respondents/claimants. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. C.M.A. dismissed.