Judgment H.K. Rathod J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw on behalf of appellant Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service. 2. The appellant has challenged award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in MACP No. 222/2002 decided on 23/1/2009. The claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,50,000/- with 7.5% interest in favour of respondent claimant. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw raised contention before this Court that AMTS is provided public transport system and facility to citizens and it has fleet of huge number of buses. On 9/10/2001 at 8.40 pm one boy viz Manoj aged 14 years succumbed to injuries due to fatal accident by passengers bus GJ-1-C-7702 owned by appellant transport service and being driven by Respondent No. 2. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw submitted that accident occurred due to negligence of deceased Manoj and there was no negligence of driver - Respondent No. 2. He submitted that detailed written statement filed and oral as well as documentary evidences were led. However, ignoring same, claims Tribunal delivered judgment and passed decree on 23/1/2009 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-. 5. He submitted that award passed by claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad is unjust, arbitrary and contrary to facts and evidence on record. The claims Tribunal has not appreciated fact that there was nothing on record to conclude that bus was driven carelessly and negligently by Respondent No. 2 driver and he was solely responsible for accident and as such had knocked down deceased Manoj causing factual injuries and ultimately death. 6. He submitted that claims Tribunal has committed gross error in concluding that appellant and its bus driver were responsible and liable to pay compensation though oral evidence is not leading to any fair conclusion. He submitted that so called eye-witness Mr. Rameshbhai has also failed to describe accident. The claims Tribunal ought to have been appreciated that this eye-witness is only Rikshaw Driver, therefore, his version as an eye-witness can not be accepted as he was not present at site when accident took place. He had only taken injured Manoj to hospital. The claims Tribunal ought to have been appreciated that Mr. Rameshbhai has failed to give any details about two passengers who were in his rickshaw when he took Manoj to V.S. hospital. Mr. Rameshbhai has also failed to point out relationship between said two passengers and deceased Manoj. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. He had only taken injured Manoj to hospital. The claims Tribunal ought to have been appreciated that Mr. Rameshbhai has failed to give any details about two passengers who were in his rickshaw when he took Manoj to V.S. hospital. Mr. Rameshbhai has also failed to point out relationship between said two passengers and deceased Manoj. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw also submitted that claims Tribunal has committed an error in not appreciating case papers like complaint, panchnama, sketch of site, statement etc duly prepared by police authority to conclude that bus driver was at fault and bus was being driven carelessly and negligently resulting into accident. 8. He also raised contention that there is nothing on record with regard to conduct of deceased as and when so called accident took place. He also raised contention that claims Tribunal has not appreciated facts that there is nothing on record about age of deceased Manojbhai, his qualification, business activities etc to substantiate say of Respondent No. 1 that he was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. The claims Tribunal has not properly appreciated facts that deceased Manojbhai was a minor and as per several judgment of Apex Court and this Court, only lump sum amount ought to have been awarded towards compensation. 9. He also raised contention before this Court that claims Tribunal has committed gross error in not considering decision which has been relied by appellant in case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Syed Ibrahim and Others reported in 2007 ACJ 2816 where minor child aged 7 years was died in accident on 20/11/1994, compensation of Rs. 51,500/- has been awarded which has been confirmed by Apex Court. Except that no other submission is made by learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw on behalf of appellant. 10. I have considered submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw and I have perused award passed by claims Tribunal. The accident occurred on 9/10/2001 at night 8.40pm. According to claimant her son Monoj, aged 14 years was going to Ganchi Pole Naka, Delhi Chakla, Ahmedabad, at that time, opponent No. 1 driver of AMTS Bus bearing registration No. GJ-1-T-7702 was come driven bus in rash and negligent manner and endangering human life and dashed with Manoj. As a result of which, Manoj sustained grievous injuries and said injuries resulted into death. As a result of which, Manoj sustained grievous injuries and said injuries resulted into death. Therefore, criminal complaint was lodged before Shahpur Police Station vide I CR No. 133/2001 and investigation was carried out. The deceased was taken to V. S. hospital and during medical treatment he died. According to claimant, at the time of accident, deceased was earning Rs. 2000/- per month from his various business had he been lived upto full span of his life, he could have earn more. The claimant has lost shelter because of death of her son due to said accident. Therefore, total claim of Rs. 3 Lacs was made. 11. The opponent No. 1 driver after receiving summons from claims Tribunal had not filed any written statement against claim petition but Respondent No. 2 Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service has filed reply before claims Tribunal, denying averment made in claim petition and involvement of vehicle is also denied. 12. Thereafter, vide Exh. 19 issues have been framed by claims Tribunal. The issue No. 1 is in respect to negligence and during course of hearing before claims Tribunal, certain documents have been exhibited i.e. certified copy of complaint Exh. 23 dated 9/10/2001, certified copy of panchnama dated 9/10/2001 Exh. 24, certified copy of inquest panchnama dated 10/10/2001 Exh. 25 and certified copy of PM report Exh. 26. The claimant Ugamben Chhaganlal Rathod was examined vide Exh. 20 and she was cross examined by Shri J.M. Vasu appearing for Respondent No. 2. Mr. Rameshbhai Patel, who was an eye-witness examined before claims Tribunal, Exh. 22 and cross examined by otherside. On behalf of AMTS, driver was examined before claims Tribunal vide Exh. 29 and cross examined by advocate of claimant. It is necessary to note that driver has not filed any reply against claim petition before claims Tribunal. The claimant has gave evidence in support of claim petition. 13. According to claimant, looking to police panchnama and evidence of eye-witness Rameshbhai, both are sufficient to prove that accident occurred due to negligent driving of opponent No. 1 and involvement of vehicle bus No. GJ-1-T-7702. According to appellant, bus was not involved in accident but driver had heard shouted from public and he stopped bus. 13. According to claimant, looking to police panchnama and evidence of eye-witness Rameshbhai, both are sufficient to prove that accident occurred due to negligent driving of opponent No. 1 and involvement of vehicle bus No. GJ-1-T-7702. According to appellant, bus was not involved in accident but driver had heard shouted from public and he stopped bus. According to driver of AMTS bus, he was driving his bus in moderate speed and when his bus was going in slow speed at by that time he had heard shouted at public, he stopped bus and came out from bus and seen behind his bus. At that time one man was stood with a boy. There was a traffic jam on road and police men were being come. The boy was taken in auto rickshaw by policemen and opponent No. 1 accompanied with them in auto rickshaw. The boy was conscious in Auto rickshaw at that time opponent No. 1 asked to boy and boy stated that a scooterist dashed to him and he dashed with bus. The opponent No. 1 had asked that how he got injuries. At that time, boy replied that injuries sustained to him by a cycle steering. The mother of boy arrived to hospital and registered case in hospital. She paid rickshaw fare to rickshaw driver. 14. The further contention raised by appellant that evidence of opponent No. 1 is sufficient to prove that there is no negligence on the part of opponent No. 1 and there is no involvement of AMTS bus at all. The mother has not seen accident. According to mother bus was standing on the spot of accident. So she stated that bus is involved in accident. On behalf of appellant further contention is raised before claims Tribunal that rickshaw driver is got up witness. According to rickshaw driver mother of boy was sitting in his rickshaw while mother of deceased herself stated that first she went to place of accident and she learnt that her son was taken at V.S. hospital. Thereafter, she went to hospital. Therefore, according to appellant, evidence of rickshaw driver Rameshbhai is not corroborated with applicant evidence, therefore, evidence of Rameshbhai not reliable evidence. He was not an eye-witness and was not present on the spot of accident. The appellant heavily relied upon evidence of driver. Thereafter, she went to hospital. Therefore, according to appellant, evidence of rickshaw driver Rameshbhai is not corroborated with applicant evidence, therefore, evidence of Rameshbhai not reliable evidence. He was not an eye-witness and was not present on the spot of accident. The appellant heavily relied upon evidence of driver. But evidence of claimant and evidence of Rameshbhai as well as driver of auto rickshaw have been considered by claims Tribunal while appreciating same, claims Tribunal come to conclusion that evidence of driver is remained without support of an independent evidence because rickshaw driver was not examined who was taken up deceased to V.S. hospital in his rickshaw. The opponent No. 1 driver has also not examined traffic police constable who was with him in auto rickshaw and in whose presence boy made above noted statement. Further important fact is that opponent No. 1 driver has not filed written statement in this matter inspite of he served with notice. The opponent No. 1 admitted that charge sheet was being filed against him. Therefore, claims Tribunal has come to conclusion that in absence of written statement which is not filed by driver of AMTS bus, his evidence simply can not be believed and he has not examined independent witness in support of his evidence. The view taken by claims Tribunal that driver who has not filed written statement means pleading against claim petition then any evidence of driver on facts can not be permitted to be led before claims Tribunal. The Transport service who has filed reply before claims Tribunal has not taken aforesaid plea in written statement as referred in Para 2 of award. The transport service opponent No. 2 has filed reply merely denying averment made in claim petition and involvement of vehicle is also denied. Except that facts, which has been stated by driver in his evidence, there was no pleading by AMTS before claims Tribunal in their written statement. So driver of AMTS bus was party to proceeding not filed pleading before claims Tribunal and gave evidence which can not be tested by claims Tribunal whether evidence of driver is contrary to his pleading or not? But looking to evidence of driver, which is contrary to written statement filed by transport service before claims tribunal. 15. So driver of AMTS bus was party to proceeding not filed pleading before claims Tribunal and gave evidence which can not be tested by claims Tribunal whether evidence of driver is contrary to his pleading or not? But looking to evidence of driver, which is contrary to written statement filed by transport service before claims tribunal. 15. Therefore, according to my opinion, evidence of driver rightly not believed by claims Tribunal because in support of his evidence, there was no pleading at all before claims tribunal. According to evidence of eye-witness Rameshbhai Patel, he stated that front side bumper of AMTS bus No. GJ-1-T-7702 dashed with cycle and bus was passing forward. He stated that he had shown accident, one gentleman and lady was in his rickshaw with boy. He stated that he was not knowing father and mother of deceased boy. Therefore, it is possible that he believed that gentleman lady were seated in auto rickshaw would be parents of boy. The witness Rameshbhai has not stated in his evidence of chief examination that mother of boy was sitting in a rickshaw when boy was taken at VS hospital. The entire evidence of Rameshbhai Patel has been perused by claims Tribunal and according to claims Tribunal, evidence of Rameshbhai is sufficient to prove involvement of vehicle and after said accident bus stopped on the spot of accident. The people who were present on the spot of accident were shouted, then bus was stopped. The bus dashed with cycle of deceased boy. The said incident has been shown by Rameshbhai and deceased was being taken to V.S. hospital in his rickshaw. If opponent No. 1 took deceased boy in rickshaw, no evidence has been produced by him and not examined driver of rickshaw and Traffic police man. If registered case in hospital not produced evidence to show his name noted in case paper. Therefore, considering evidence on record, claims Tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that there is no reason to disbelieve evidence of eye-witness Rameshbhai. Considering Exh. 24 police panchnama wherein bus number is noted and according to evidence of Rameshbhai he has also stated same bus number in his evidence. Looking to police panchnama Exh. Therefore, considering evidence on record, claims Tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that there is no reason to disbelieve evidence of eye-witness Rameshbhai. Considering Exh. 24 police panchnama wherein bus number is noted and according to evidence of Rameshbhai he has also stated same bus number in his evidence. Looking to police panchnama Exh. 24, it is noted that cycle part from chain cover to seat was bend and flap due to bus wheel rolled on cycle these evidence is also support to evidence of eye-witness Rameshbhai that bus was dashed with cycle. The broadness of road is 36 feet as noted in panchnama. Therefore, evidence of eye-witness Exh. 22 has been rightly believed by claims Tribunal and evidence of opponent No. 1 driver is also rightly not believed after considering submissions made by both learned advocates by claims Tribunal. This being a finding of fact and appreciation of evidence from record, can not be interfered by this Court. The finding of fact decided by claims Tribunal that looking to panchnama Exh. 24 and evidence of eye-witness Exh. 22, both are sufficient to prove rash and negligent driving of driver of bus No. GJ-1-T-7702. Therefore, issue No. 1 has been rightly decided considering fact that it was absolutely negligence on the part of driver opponent No. 1 of offending vehicle. For that, no error is committed by claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad. Therefore, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw can not be accepted. 16. In respect to quantum claims Tribunal has considered submission made by both learned advocates and also evidence on record and age of boy 14 years. The decision which has been relied by learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw reported in 2007 ACJ 2816 wherein minor child aged 7 years was died in accident on 20/11/1994 where Apex Court has confirmed compensation of Rs. 51,500/- having different facts in present case and come to conclusion that it is not helpful to appellant because age of deceased 14 years, claimant - mother of deceased is widow. The deceased was not studying in school but helping to his mother by doing miscellaneous work. So facts of both cases are altogether different. Therefore, rightly distinguished aforesaid decision which has been relied by learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw. The deceased was not studying in school but helping to his mother by doing miscellaneous work. So facts of both cases are altogether different. Therefore, rightly distinguished aforesaid decision which has been relied by learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw. The claims Tribunal has relied upon decision of Apex Court in case of Jito Devi reported in 2008 ACJ 2297 where in case of fatal accident, deceased aged about 15 years and claimants are parents, claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,10,000/- but appellate Court reduced it to Rs. 2,50,000/-. the relevant discussion made in Para 8 is quoted as under: “8. During the course of consideration of this appeal it was brought to my notice that in almost similar case like the present one, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had allowed an amount of Rs. 2,25,000 as compensation for the death of a minor aged 13 years in case titled Manju Devi vs. Musafir Paswan, 2005 ACJ 99 (SC), where Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had observed as under: “(3) As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 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.” In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Supra), I am of the view that keeping in view the age of the minor and the age of the parents an amount of Rs. 2,50,000 along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum would be just compensation to the parents of the deceased minor in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.” 17. The claims Tribunal has also considered other decision in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dhanpalsing Panwar and Others reported in 2008 ACJ 568 where 13 years girl was died in accident. The Uttaranchal High Court upheld award of compensation Rs. 2,25,000/- passed by Tribunal by following ratio passed by Apex Court in case of S. Sana Ulla and Another vs. A.R. Shivashankar and Others reported in 2005 ACJ 2543. Another case is also considered in case of Santosh Rani vs. Ranjit Singh and Other reported in 2008 ACJ 1405 where also lump sum amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- passed by Tribunal by following ratio passed by Apex Court in case of S. Sana Ulla and Another vs. A.R. Shivashankar and Others reported in 2005 ACJ 2543. Another case is also considered in case of Santosh Rani vs. Ranjit Singh and Other reported in 2008 ACJ 1405 where also lump sum amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been awarded in case of loss of life at tendered age and future prospect of young man and mental agony suffered by claimant. 18. The relevant discussion made by claims Tribunal after considering above referred decision in Paras 15 and 16 are quoted as under: “15. In case of in my hand wherein applicant is widow woman and deceased was her son Manoj who was helping her doing miscellaneous work and was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. According to schedule dependency monthly loss Rs. 2,000/- and so yearly income Rs. 2000/- x 12 months = 24000/-. The deceased boy was a minor and therefore, 1/3rd deducting from the income Rs. 24,000/- and hence, yearly dependency loss is Rs. 16,000/-. the deceased Manoj had attained age of 14 years therefore, reasonable 15 multiplier is considered and therefore, actual dependency loss Rs. 16,000/- x 15 = 2,40,000/-. Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and shock, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and estates and funeral expenses Rs. 5000/- totaling Rs. 2,65,000/- is required to be applied in the present case. 16. In this matter no evidence of income has been produced but the deceased was not studying in the school and therefore, it is presumed that he was earning some amount and was helping to his mother who is a widow. Hence in the interest of justice a just, fair and reasonable compensate award is required to be awarded and in my view the reasonable just, fair and reasonable means the assessment of damages to be compensated to the dependents be set with difficulties and for that the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependents, the amount that the deceased would have earned contributed to the dependents during that period. The case on hand wherein deceased was earning and was helping to his mother but in absence of evidence of income, in my view the reasonable compensation award is required to be passed in present case. The case on hand wherein deceased was earning and was helping to his mother but in absence of evidence of income, in my view the reasonable compensation award is required to be passed in present case. So, as per the above discussion and ratio of the above noted authority cases would be applied in this case. In the case on hand a young boy aged 14 years named Manoj was died who was helping his mother by earning some income. So considering the facto of loss of life at young age and the future prospect of young man and mental agony suffered by the applicant the just and reasonable award a lump sum compensate of Rs. 2,50,000/- is required to be passed in light of the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court of India reported in ACJ wherein a deceased boy aged of 13 years and was earning Rs. 50/- or 60/- per day. In the case on hand wherein also a boy aged of 14 years of age died in the accident earning Rs. 2000/- per month. In the authority case Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded Rs. 2,65,000/- whereas in this case Tribunal fixes lump sum amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- which is less Rs. 15,000/- then the reported authority cases.” 19. Recently Apex Court has considered injury to young girl aged 9 years in case of Priya Vasant Kai Gutkar vs. Murad Shaikh & Ors. reported in 2009 (10) Scale 345 where following discussion is made in Para 9 which is quoted as under: “9. We, may however, notice that in Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar ( (2001) 8 SCC 197 ), this Court held: “11. So far as the award of compensation in case of children is concerned, Shri Justice Chandrachud has divided them into two groups, the first group between the age group of 5 to 10 years and second group between the age of 10 to 15 years. In case of children between the age group of 5 to 10 years, a uniform sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been held to be payable by way of compensation, to which the conventional figure of Rs. 25,000/- has been added and as such to the heirs of the 14 children, a consolidated sum of Rs. 75,000/- each, has been awarded. In case of children between the age group of 5 to 10 years, a uniform sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been held to be payable by way of compensation, to which the conventional figure of Rs. 25,000/- has been added and as such to the heirs of the 14 children, a consolidated sum of Rs. 75,000/- each, has been awarded. So far as the children in the age group of 10 to 15 years, there are 10 such children who died on the fateful day and having found their contribution to the family at Rs. 12,000/- per annum, 11 multiplier has been applied, particularly, depending upon the age of the father and then the conventional compensation of Rs. 25,000 has been added to each case and consequently, the heirs of each of the deceased above 10 years of age, have been granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,57,000/- each. In case of the death infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit delivered by its parents during the child’s lifetime. But this will not necessarily bar the parents’ claim and prospective loss will found 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 vs. Jenkins 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 can not 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” At the same time, it must be held that a mere speculative possibility of benefit is not sufficient. 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” At the same time, it must be held that a mere speculative possibility of benefit is not sufficient. Question whether there exists a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage is always a mixed question of fact and law. There are several decided cases on this point, providing the guidelines for determination of compensate in such cases but we do not think it necessary for us to advert, as the claimants had not adduced any materials on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefits, which the parents expected. In case of a bright and healthy boy, his performances in the school, it would be easier for the authority to arrive at the compensation amount, which may be different from another sickly unhealthy, rickety child and bad student, but as has been stated earlier, not an iota of material was produced before Shri Justice Chandrachud to enable him to arrive at a just compensation in such cases and therefore, he has determined the same on an approximation. Mr. Nariman, appearing for TISCO on his own, submitted that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be doubled, as in his view also, the determination made is grossly inadequate. Loss of a child to the parents is irrecoupable, and no amount of money could compensate the parents. Having regard tot he environment from which these children were brought, their parents being reasonably well placed officials of Tata Iron and steel Company, and on considering the submission of Mr. Nariman, we would direct that the compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other words, it should be Rs. 1.5 lakhs, to which the conventional figure of Rs. 50,000/- should be added and thus the total amount in each case would be Rs. 2.00 lakhs. So far as the children between the age group of 10 to 15 years, they are all students of Class VI to Class X and are children of employees of TISCO. TISCO itself has a tradition that every employee can get one of his children employed in the Company. Having regard to these facts, in their case, the contribution of Rs. TISCO itself has a tradition that every employee can get one of his children employed in the Company. Having regard to these facts, in their case, the contribution of Rs. 12,000 per annum appears to us to be on the lower side and in our considered opinion, the contribution should be Rs. 24,000/- and instead of 11 multiplier, the appropriate multiplier would be 15. Therefore, the compensation, so calculated on the aforesaid basis should be worked out to Rs. 3.60 lakhs, to which an additional sum of Rs. 50,000 has to be added, thus making the total amount payable at Rs. 4.10 lakhs for each of the claimants of the aforesaid deceased children.” Even by that standard, the amount of compensation granted by the High Court appears to be adequate in absence of any evidence having brought on record as to the actual damages.” 20. Recently Apex Court has considered compensation to be awarded in case of death of child when school bus drawn in Yamuna River while considering pecuniary and non pecuniary loss in case of R.K. Malik vs. Kiran Pal reported in 2009 (8) Scale 415 where Apex Court has considered future prospect income of such minor child while calculating compensation in case of death. The Apex Court has confirmed future prospective income of minor Rs. 75,000/- which has been added in amount of compensation. The relevant discussion made in Paras 31 and 34 are quoted as under: “31. A forceful submission has been made by the learned counsels appearing for the claimants appellant that both the Tribunal as well as the High Court failed to consider the claims of the appellants with regard to the future prospects of the children. It has been submitted that the evidence with regard to the same has been ignored by the Courts below, on perusal of the evidence on record, we find merit in such submission that the Courts below have overlooked that aspect of the matter while granting compensation. It is well settled legal principle that in addition to awarding compensation for pecuniary losses, compensation must also be granted with regard to the future prospects of the children. It is incumbent upon the Courts to consider the said aspect while awarding compensation. It is well settled legal principle that in addition to awarding compensation for pecuniary losses, compensation must also be granted with regard to the future prospects of the children. It is incumbent upon the Courts to consider the said aspect while awarding compensation. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the decisions rendered by this Court in General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C. vs. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 ; Sarla Dixit vs. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179 ; and Lata Wadhwa case (Supra). 34. So far as the pecuniary damage is concerned we are of the considered view both the Tribunal as well as the High Court has awarded the compensation on the basis of Second Schedule and relevant multiplier under the Act. However, we may notice here that as far as non pecuniary damages are concerned, the Tribunal does not award any compensation under the head of non pecuniary damages. However, in appeal the High Court has elaborately discussed this aspect of the matter and has awarded non pecuniary damages of Rs. 75,000. Needless to say, pecuniary damages seeks to compensate those losses which can be translate into money terms like loss of earnings, actual and prospective earnings and other out of pocket expenses. In contrast, non pecuniary damages include such immeasurable elements as pain and suffering and loss of amenity and enjoyment of life. In this context, it becomes duty of the Court to award just compensate for non pecuniary loss. As already noted it is difficult to quantify the non pecuniary compensation, nevertheless, the endeavour of the Court must be provide a just, fair and reasonable amount as compensation keeping in view all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration. We have noticed that the High Court in present case has enhanced the compensation in this category by Rs. 75,000/- in all connected appeals. We do not find any infirmity in that regard.” 21. In view of above observation made by Apex Court in recent decision and considering fact that deceased Manoj was not studying at all and doing miscellaneous and labour work to help her mother. Therefore, he was considered as an earning boy, that aspect has been rightly taken into account by claims Tribunal and considering loss of life at young age and mental agony suffered by applicant. The claims Tribunal has rightly awarded lump sum amount of Rs. Therefore, he was considered as an earning boy, that aspect has been rightly taken into account by claims Tribunal and considering loss of life at young age and mental agony suffered by applicant. The claims Tribunal has rightly awarded lump sum amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, for which, according to my opinion, amount of compensation can not consider to be on higher side. On the contrary, it is just, reasonable and proper compensation awarded by claims Tribunal while keeping in mind object of Section 168 of M.V. Act. Therefore, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw can not be accepted, hence rejected. 22. I have perused entire award passed by claims Tribunal. The claims Tribunal has given cogent reason in support of its conclusion. The question of negligence has been rightly decided being finding of fact and considering evidence of eye-witness, panchnama rightly disbelieved evidence of driver, for that, claims Tribunal has not committed any error which would require interference by this Court. 23. Hence, there is no substance in present appeal, accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. Today, first appeal is dismissed by this Court, therefore, no order is required to be passed in civil application. Accordingly, civil application is also disposed of. P P P P P