JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: (Oral) - The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants, seeking enhancement of amount awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short ‘the Tribunal) vide Award dated 30.4.2010, on account of death of Dhiraj, in a road accident on 8.3.2009. 2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are that death of Dhiraj occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, the driver of the tractor, while he was returning from the fields. The deceased was being brought to Rewari, but he succumbed to the injuries on the way. The claimant-appellant filed the claim petition, which was allowed by the learned Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs.1,82,00/- as compensation. Feeling dissatisfied with the said award, the claimant-appellants filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was 8 ½ years old and was a student of 3rd standard at the time of accident. He further states that while determining the compensation, the learned Tribunal did not consider the future prospectus of the deceased. He has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K.Malik and another vs. Kiran Pal and others 2009(3) RCR (Civil), 403. 4. Despite service none caused appearance on behalf of the respondents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 6. The fact of accident is proved on record. The deceased was a student of 3rd standard. The learned Tribunal awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, as compensation. Regarding the future prospectus, in RK Malik and another’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para nos.24, 25, 26, 31 and 32 has observed as under:- 24. It is extremely difficult to quantify the non pecuniary compensation as it is to a great extent based upon the sentiments and emotions. But, the same could not be a ground for non-payment of any amount whatsoever by stating that it is difficult to quantify and pinpoint the exact amount payable with mathematical accuracy. Human life cannot be measured only in terms of loss of earning or monetary losses alone. There are emotional attachments involved and loss of a child can have a devastating effect on the family which can be easily visualized and understood. Human life cannot be measured only in terms of loss of earning or monetary losses alone. There are emotional attachments involved and loss of a child can have a devastating effect on the family which can be easily visualized and understood. Perhaps, the only mechanism known to law in this kind of situation is to compensate a person who has suffered non-pecuniary loss or damage as a consequence of the wrong done to him by way of damages/monetary compensation. Undoubtedly, when a victim of a wrong suffers injuries he is entitled to compensation including compensation for the prospective life, pain and suffering, happiness etc., which is sometimes described as compensation paid for “loss of expectation of life”. This head of compensation need not be restricted to a case where the injured person himself initiates action but is equally admissible if his dependant brings about the action. 25. That being the position, the crucial problem arises with regard to the quantification of such compensation. The injury inflicted by deprivation of the life of a child is extremely difficult to quantify. In view of the uncertainties and contingencies of human life, what would be an appropriate figure, an adequate solatium is difficult to specify. The courts have therefore used the expression “standard compensation” and “conventional amount/sum” to get over the difficulty that arises in quantifying a figure as the same ensures consistency and uniformity in awarding compensations. 26. While quantifying and arriving at a figure for “loss of expectation of life”, the Court have to keep in mind that this figure is not to be calculated for the prospective loss or further pecuniary benefits that has been awarded under another head i.e. pecuniary loss. The compensation payable under this head is for loss of life and not loss of future pecuniary prospects. Under this head, compensation is paid for termination of life, which results in constant pain and suffering. This pain and suffering does not depend upon the financial position of the victim or the claimant but rather on the capacity and the ability of the deceased to provide happiness to the claimant. This compensation is paid for loss of prospective happiness which the claimant/victim would have enjoyed had the child not been died at the tender age. 31. This pain and suffering does not depend upon the financial position of the victim or the claimant but rather on the capacity and the ability of the deceased to provide happiness to the claimant. This compensation is paid for loss of prospective happiness which the claimant/victim would have enjoyed had the child not been died at the tender age. 31. A forceful submission has been made by the learned counsels appearing for the claimants-appellants 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. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the decisions rendered by this Court in General Manager, Kerala S. R. T. C. v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176; Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179; and Lata Wadhwa case (supra). 32. In view of discussion made hereinbefore, it is quite clear the claim with regard to future prospect should have been be addressed by the courts below. While considering such claims, child’s performance in school, the reputation of the school etc. might be taken into consideration. In the present case, records shows that the children were good in studies and studying in a reasonably good school. Naturally, their future prospect would be presumed to be good and bright. Since they were children, there is no yardstick to measure the loss of future prospects of these children. But as already noted, they were performing well in studies, natural consequence supposed to be a bright future. In the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) and M. S. Grewal (supra), the Supreme Court recognised such future prospect as basis and factor to be considered. Therefore, denying compensation towards future prospects seems to be unjustified. But as already noted, they were performing well in studies, natural consequence supposed to be a bright future. In the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) and M. S. Grewal (supra), the Supreme Court recognised such future prospect as basis and factor to be considered. Therefore, denying compensation towards future prospects seems to be unjustified. Keeping this in background, facts and circumstances of the present case, and following the decision in Lata Wadhwa (supra) and M. S. Grewal (supra), we deem it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs. 75,000/- (which is roughly half of the amount given on account of pecuniary damages) as compensation for the future prospects of the children, to be paid to each claimant within one month of the date of this decision. We would like to clarify that this amount i.e. Rs. 75,000/- is over and above what has been awarded by the High Court. 7. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of RK Malik’s case (supra), in which catena of judgments have been discussed, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be met, if total sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as compensation is granted to the appellants. Ordered accordingly. 8. Accordingly, the total enhanced amount i.e.Rs.98,000/- (2,80,000- 1,82,000 (already awarded by the learned Tribunal), shall be paid to the appellants, in the manner indicated in the impugned Award, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, failing which, the appellants shall be entitled to get carry interest @ 7 ½ per annum from the date of the filing of the appeal, till its realisation. 9. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed with the modification indicated above. ---------0.B.S.0------------