JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral):-Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of the same accident. FAO 308 of 2000 has been preferred by the Insurance Company, contesting its liability to pay the awarded amount and FAO 448 of 2000 has been preferred by the claimants praying for enhancement. 2. The facts which are common to both these appeals are that on 24.6/1999, deceased Maheshwar Singh, son of the claimants was traveling in Maruti Van No. HP 02-5889 after attending a marriage. This van was owned by Shri Ganga Ram, respondent No. 3 and was being driven by Deepak Sharma, respondent No. 4. At about 10 P.M. on that day, this vehicle met with an accident when it fell into a ravine about 200 feet deep. Maheshwar Singh suffered fatal injuries. The other occupants of the van were injured. 3. The claimants who are the parents of the deceased prayed for compensation to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs for the death of their son, who at the relevant time, was aged about 15 years. 4. The respondent Insurance Company resisted the claim on the ground that the driver of the ill fated vehicle did not possess a valid driving license. This is the issue which was urged before this Court in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. It was submitted that Deepak Sharma, respondent No. 4 was not authorized to drive the van which was being plied as a taxi, as vide Ex.RD which is the driving licence he was only licensed to drive a light motor vehicle and was not endorsed for permission to drive a taxi. Learned counsel has urged with some vehemence that no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company. Learned counsel submits that Ex.RA proved that the vehicle had been registered as a Tourist Taxi and Ex.RD did not contain any endorsement authorizing respondent No. 4 to drive a commercial vehicle. This submission of the appellant needs to be rejected. 5. Learned counsel has urged with some vehemence that no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company. Learned counsel submits that Ex.RA proved that the vehicle had been registered as a Tourist Taxi and Ex.RD did not contain any endorsement authorizing respondent No. 4 to drive a commercial vehicle. This submission of the appellant needs to be rejected. 5. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 1418, the Supreme Court while dealing with this question as to whether such endorsement was required or not, held that the amendment which was carried out in the Motor Vehicles Act in Sections 2(21) and Rule 149 of the Motor Vehicles Rules are applicable with prospective effect, that is to say on or after 28.3.2001 when these amendments were notified. The Court held: “16. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that transport vehicle has now been substituted for ‘medium goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy goods vehicle’. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, ‘light passenger carriage vehicle’ and ‘light goods carriage vehicle’. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well. 17. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law.” 6. FAO (MVA) 448 of 2000 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation granted for the death of their son. It is undisputed that the deceased Maheshwar Singh was aged 15 years on the date when the accident occurred. It is also undisputed that at the relevant time, he was studying and had passed the middle standard examination. Ex.PC is the Certificate issued by the Himachal Board of School Education showing that the deceased has passed Middle standard examination in December, 1998 in the second division. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- as a lump sum. 7. This approach of the Tribunal cannot be accepted. It not only discloses a callous disregard to the principles of law applicable, but also a cavalier approach in assessing the loss to the parents. 8. This Court in Hukmabati and others v. Punjab Roadways, Ropar and others, 2005 (2) Shim. 7. This approach of the Tribunal cannot be accepted. It not only discloses a callous disregard to the principles of law applicable, but also a cavalier approach in assessing the loss to the parents. 8. This Court in Hukmabati and others v. Punjab Roadways, Ropar and others, 2005 (2) Shim. L.C. 256 while dealing with the compensation claim of the deceased in that case who was aged about 15 years and was studying in class 10th at the relevant time held: “9. In case of children one aspect which must be kept in mind is that it is normally children who belong to the lower middle class and poorer Section of society, who render financial assistance to their parents. Children of rich parents in fact inherit the wealth of the parents and are usually not required to render financial assistance to them. Where there is more than one child, the parents cannot be exclusively dependant on one child. 10.While calculating the compensation in the case of death of a child the Court has to balance the equities. All children are not necessarily dutiful. However, keeping in view the Indian family system, it is expected of a child to look after his parents. Some times this hope may not be fulfilled. Children go and settle in abroad. Some children settle within India, but at a distant places. Sometimes it is the children who are dependant on the parents as long as the parents are alive. However, we have to go by conventional wisdom and the award has to be made on conventional basis. 11.Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was studying in a good school and was a brilliant student and the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 1996, the future earnings of the deceased can conservatively be estimated at more than Rs. 5,000/- per month. The deceased keeping in view his academic achievements could have reasonably aspired to become at Doctor, Engineer, Chartered Accountant or could have joined any other profession where he could have had substantial income. In the beginning only he would not have earned less than Rs. 5,000/- per month and over a period of time, his income would have grown. The deceased keeping in view his academic achievements could have reasonably aspired to become at Doctor, Engineer, Chartered Accountant or could have joined any other profession where he could have had substantial income. In the beginning only he would not have earned less than Rs. 5,000/- per month and over a period of time, his income would have grown. While assessing the dependency of the parents the various factors mentioned above have been kept in consideration and it would not be unreasonable to assess the monetary loss to the mother at Rs 1,500/- per month or Rs. 18,000/- per year. The mother was aged about 41 years at the time of the accident and the relevant multiplier would be 15. The compensation for loss of dependency would be Rs. 2,70,000/-. The parents have lost their only male child and, therefore, they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of love and affection. They are also entitled to another sum of Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses and conventional damages. The total compensation payable, therefore, works out to Rs. 2,90,000/-.This amount is apportioned as follows: (1) Smt Hukambati (Mother) Rs 2,50,000/- (2) Ms Atula Chandel (Sister) Rs 40,000/- The award of the Tribunal is, therefore, modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,72,800/- to Rs. 2,90,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to interest on this amount @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 26.6.1996 till deposit of the amount. The claimants are also entitled to costs of the appeal, which are assessed at Rs. 3,000/-. The respondent Punjab Roadways is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest and costs in the Registry of this Court on or before 15th September, 2005 failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. today….” A sum of Rs.2,90,000/- was awarded. 9. In this appeal, the evidence of PW-1 has been ignored by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urges that the amount as claimed, that is Rs.3 lakhs, is excessive. This submission cannot be accepted. The Judgment in Hukmabati and others (supra) is clear and unequivocal and does not admit of any other meaning. However, no two cases can be alike on facts. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urges that the amount as claimed, that is Rs.3 lakhs, is excessive. This submission cannot be accepted. The Judgment in Hukmabati and others (supra) is clear and unequivocal and does not admit of any other meaning. However, no two cases can be alike on facts. What has to be noticed is that the Tribunal did not award any amount for funeral expenses as also for loss of love and affection in this case. If these expenses are taken at Rs.10,000/- each at the very minimum, an additional sum of Rs.20,000/- deserves to be awarded to the claimants. 10. If the income of Rs.5000/- is considered and if multiplier of 15 is applied, as has been held in Hukmabati’s case supra, the total compensation of dependency would come to Rs.2,70,000/-. I must also add that on facts the age of the deceased and that of the parents is the same in both cases. However, considering the uncertainties of future etc., this sum can be reduced to Rs.2,25,000/-. Thus, in all, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,45,000/-as compensation including funeral expenses and loss of love and affection. This amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this judgment till payment is made. The amount shall be distributed in the ratio 70:30 between the two appellants, that is the mother would be entitled to 70% and the father to 30% of the amount. In the result, FAO No. 308 of 2000 instituted by the Insurance Company is dismissed and FAO 448 of 2000 is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.