JUDGMENT :- Basheer, J. Can an apprentice earning a paltry monthly stipend be treated as an “earning member” and denied the benefit of Clause 6(a) of the Second Schedule incorporated under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act? 2. This is the short, but interesting question that has come up for consideration in this appeal preferred by the old parents and siblings of a 24 year old victim of a road traffic accident. 3. The youngster aged 24 had been admittedly working as an apprentice in M/s Malabar Cements Ltd. at the time of the unfortunate fatal accident. It is not in dispute that he had been earning a sum of Rs. 524.70 per month. On May 14, 1995, the youngster was knocked down from his two wheeler by a speeding bus. He succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained by him in the accident. It was in the above circumstances that the old parents and brothers and sisters of the deceased victim instituted the claim petition under Section 163 A of the Act seeking compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the offending stage carriage. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the materials available on record, particularly Ext.A6 salary certificate, awarded a sum of Rs. 65,532/- as compensation with 9% interest and directed the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle to pay the same. The claimants have preferred this appeal challenging the inadequacy of the award. 5. Sri. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the Tribunal committed serious illegality in ignoring the Second Schedule under Section 163 A of the Act while passing the award. According to Sri. Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional annual income of the deceased as atleast Rs. 15,000/- as provided under the Schedule and calculated the compensation accordingly. He submits that the Act being a welfare measure, the Tribunal ought to have taken a more liberal view and adopted the notional income as provided under the second Schedule. 6. However, Sri. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel who appears for the Insurance Company submits that the above contention is wholly untenable, since admittedly the deceased was not a “non-earning” person. Indisputably, the deceased was working as an apprentice. It may be true that his monthly income was only nominal. But still, it cannot be said that he was a non-earning person. However, Sri. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel who appears for the Insurance Company submits that the above contention is wholly untenable, since admittedly the deceased was not a “non-earning” person. Indisputably, the deceased was working as an apprentice. It may be true that his monthly income was only nominal. But still, it cannot be said that he was a non-earning person. Going by sub-clause (a) of Clause 6 in the Second Schedule, notional income of Rs.15,000/- can be adopted only in those cases, in which the victim was a non-earning person. 7. Second schedule has been inserted in the Act in 1994. The Schedule indicates the methodology or indices to be adopted while fixing compensation under Section 163A of the Act. Clause 2 postulates that the amount of compensation to be computed under the Second schedule shall not be less than Rs.50,000/-. Clause 3 deals with amounts payable as general damages (in case of death) towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of estate, etc. Clause 4 deals with cases of injuries and disabilities. 8. Clause 6 which is relevant for our purpose is extracted hereunder: “Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident: Fatal and disability in non-fatal accidents: (a) Non-earning persons: Rs. 15,000 p.a. (b) Spouse: Rs. 1/3rd of income of the earning/surviving spouse. In case of other injuries only “general damage” as applicable.” 9. It is true that Sub clause (a) of Clause 6 stipulates that the annual income of a non-earning person has to be reckoned as Rs.15,000/- per annum. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal ought to have taken the annual income of the deceased in this case as atleast Rs.15,000/- as stipulated in sub clause (a) to clause 6. 10. It has been noticed already that the appellants/claimants did not have a case that the deceased was a non-earning person. On the contrary, it was admitted by them that the deceased was working as an apprentice in M/S Malabar Cements and earning a sum of Rs.524.70 per month. 11. The short question is whether the benefit of sub clause (a) of clause 6 can be extended to the claimants in the case on hand. On the contrary, it was admitted by them that the deceased was working as an apprentice in M/S Malabar Cements and earning a sum of Rs.524.70 per month. 11. The short question is whether the benefit of sub clause (a) of clause 6 can be extended to the claimants in the case on hand. In other words, the question is whether the monthly earning of the deceased while working as apprentice can be ignored totally in order to give the claimants the benefit of clause 6 (a) of the Second Schedule. In our view, the answer has to be in the affirmative for reasons more than one. 12. “Apprentice”, under the Apprentices Act 1961, “means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship.” “Apprenticeship training” under the Act means “a course of training in any industry or establishment undergone in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship and under prescribed terms and conditions which may be different for different categories of apprentices.” 13. In this context, it may be pertinent to note that Section 18 of the above Act postulates that apprentices are trainees and not workers and that the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentice. 14. An apprentice “is a learner who is paid an allowance during the period of his training” (emphasis supplied). (See sub clause (g) of clause 3 of Schedule 1 of Model Standing orders in respect of Industrial Establishments, issued under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Rule 1946 framed thereunder) 15. In Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth edition) apprentice is described as “a person who agrees to work for an employer for a specified time for the purpose of learning the craft, trade or profession in which the employer agrees to instruct him. In a more popular sense the term is used to convey the idea of a learner in any field of employment or business”. 16. We need not elucidate further. No doubt, stricto sensu, the deceased cannot be treated as a non-earning person. But the so called “earnings” will have to be kept in view not only in the socio-economic scenario prevailing in our country now, but also in the larger contextual back drop of the legislation itself. 17. 16. We need not elucidate further. No doubt, stricto sensu, the deceased cannot be treated as a non-earning person. But the so called “earnings” will have to be kept in view not only in the socio-economic scenario prevailing in our country now, but also in the larger contextual back drop of the legislation itself. 17. It is trite that the chapter X, XI and XII in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been incorporated with a view to ameliorate the hardship and difficulties that may be faced by the victims of road traffic accidents. The provisions contained in these chapters are undoubtedly welfare measures which have been incorporated with a view to reach out to the unfortunate victims. While Chapter X deals with the cases dealing with liability without fault Chapter XI mandates compulsory insurance against 3rd party risks. Chapter XII is incorporated with the salutary purpose to simplify the procedure while deciding claims for compensation. 18. We do not propose to elaborate much on this topic at this stage, since it has been repeatedly held in a catena of decisions that the emphasis must always be on speedy disposal of claim petitions and that too with utmost compassion to the victim and his family. Claims should not be rejected on technical grounds and for trivial reasons. In short, it must always be ensured that the welfare of the victim and his family must be the first and foremost consideration while dealing with petitions for compensation. 19. There is no gain saying the fact that the deceased might have later on obtained an employment in the institution where he had been engaged as an apprentice. In any view of the matter, the monthly stipend of Rs. 524.70 that was being paid to the deceased is too insignificant in the present financial scenario. In our view, the stipend that was being earned by the deceased every month while undergoing training as an apprentice ought to have been ignored and the deceased ought to have been treated as a non-earning member as provided under clause 6(a) of the Second Schedule while reckoning the loss of dependency. 20. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The notional income of the deceased is reckoned as Rs.15,000/- per annum and the compensation is calculated accordingly. 20. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The notional income of the deceased is reckoned as Rs.15,000/- per annum and the compensation is calculated accordingly. 15,000 x 2/3 x 17 = 1,70,000/- In all other respects the award passed by the Tribunal is sustained. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.