JUDGMENT 1. That on 28.03.2007, about 7.45 P.M., when the first respondent was walking along with his son, aged about 11 years and a student in Standard 6, a van bearing Registration No.TN 46 B 6867, owned by the third respondent and insured with the appellant ICICI Lombard Insurance Company, came from behind and dashed against the minor child. He sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Ariyalur and provided with First Aid and thereafter, for better treatment, shifted to Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur. Inspite of intensive treatment, he died. 2. According to the respondents, the deceased was a bright student. But for the untoward incident, he would have continued his education and later on, contributed a sizable income to the family. The loss of child to the family have caused inexplicable agony. In this regard, a case in Cr.No.50 of 2007, under Section 3-A IPC has been registered by the Police, against the driver of the Van, bearing Registration No.TN 46 B 6867. The legal representatives claimed compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs. 3. The first respondent, owner of the vehicle, has remained ex parte. The Insurance Company has disputed the manner of accident and their consequential liability. According to them, it is the minor child, who suddenly crossed the road and invited the accident. Despite the application of brakes, the accident could not be adverted and in the abovesaid circumstances, the Insurance Company has denied their liability to pay compensation. 4. Before the Claims Tribunal, mother of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated the manner of accident. PW.2, is the father. Ex.P1 – FIR, Ex.P2 – Post-Mortem Certificate, Ex.P3 – Registration Certificate of the vehicle, Ex.P4 – Policy, P5 – Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report have been marked on the side of the respondents/claimants. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on the side of the Insurance Company. 5. Upon evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that the driver of the Van, bearing Registration No.TN 46 B 6867, was negligent in causing the accident. Since the deceased was aged 11 years, the Claims Tribunal fixed his notional income at Rs.15,000/-per annum. Applying 18' multiplier, the Claims Tribunal quantified the loss of contribution to the family, at Rs.2,70,000/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for Funeral Expenses. Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for transportation. Respondents 1 and 2 are parents. Since the deceased was aged 11 years, the Claims Tribunal fixed his notional income at Rs.15,000/-per annum. Applying 18' multiplier, the Claims Tribunal quantified the loss of contribution to the family, at Rs.2,70,000/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for Funeral Expenses. Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for transportation. Respondents 1 and 2 are parents. The 3rd respondent is the sister of the deceased. Considering the loss of love and affection of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal has awarded 50,000/-under the abovesaid head. Altogether, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,40,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim. 6. Though the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal, on the ground that the quantum of compensation of Rs.3,40,000/-, is on the higher side, on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in adopting a higher multiplier of 18', this Court is not inclined to accept the same, as the Supreme Court in R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal [2009 (1) TNMAC 593 (SC)], has standardised the payment of compensation for the death of children, upto the age of 18 years, by applying different multipliers, taking the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum. The quantum of compensation towards non-pecuniary loss of Rs.75,000/- and a further compensation of Rs.75,000/-for future prospects, remain the same, irrespective of the age group. In the reported case, the accident occurred on 18.11.1997, when a School bus, carrying school children, breaking the railing, got drowned in Yamuna river at Wazirabad Yamuna Bridge, killing 29 children. Though all the legal representatives of the deceased filed separate claims, under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal, by its common award, dated 06.12.2004, awarded a sum of Rs.1,55,000/-to the dependents of children between the age group of 10 to 15 years and Rs.1,65,000/-between 15 to 18 years. Three of the children, viz., Kailash Rathi, Neena Jain and Jatish Sharma were less than 10 years. In the case of Kailash Rathi, compensation of Rs.1,05,000/-was awarded and in the cases of Neena Jain and Jatish Sharma, compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- and Rs.1,31,000/- respectively was awarded. In addition to the above, Rs.1,000/-was awarded in the case of Jatish Sharma, as in some other cases, for loss of books. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- each towards funeral and last rites. In addition to the above, Rs.1,000/-was awarded in the case of Jatish Sharma, as in some other cases, for loss of books. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- each towards funeral and last rites. While computing dependency compensation, Rs.5,000/- was deducted towards personal living expenses, after applying 15' multiplier for children, below 15 years and 16' multiplier for children, between 16 and 18 years respectively. 7. In Jitender Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., reported in 2010 (1) TNMAC 688 (Del.), a child, aged about 3 years, was killed in the accident. The Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and deducted 1/3rd for his personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 15' to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.1,50,000/. Rs.2,500/- has been awarded towards loss of Estate and Rs.2,500/- has been awarded towards Funeral Expenses. Altogether, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,54,500/-. The reported judgment further shows that when enhancement was sought for, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Delhi High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Farzana [M.A.C.App.No.13 of 2007, dated 14.07.2009], in which, the High Court determined the compensation at Rs.3,75,000/- for the death of a child aged 7 years, following the decisions of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court in Manju Devi v. Sukhvir Singh [2004 (2) TNMAC 262 (SC) : 2005 (7) SLT 257], Sobhagya Devi v. Sukhvir Singh [2006 (2) ACC 1997], Syam Narayan v. Kitty Tours and Travels [2006 ACJ 320] and R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal [2009 (1) TNMAC 593 (SC)]. Finding that Jitender Kumar's case was squarely covered by the judgment in Farzana's case, the Delhi High Court in Jitender Kumar's case, allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,74,000/- from Rs.1,54,500/-, already awarded by the Tribunal, restricting the rate of interest at 7.5% per annum, on the enhanced compensation. 8. In view of the above decisions, the compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- to the parents and sister, cannot be said to be on the higher side, considering the loss of the child to the family. In R.K. Malik's case (cited supra), the accident has occurred in 1997, whereas, in the case on hand, the accident has occurred in the year 2007, after nearly 10 years. In R.K. Malik's case (cited supra), the accident has occurred in 1997, whereas, in the case on hand, the accident has occurred in the year 2007, after nearly 10 years. It is unfortunate that the Insurance Company has questioned the quantum of compensation, notwithstanding the diminution in the value of the money, escalation in the price, contending inter alia that it is disproportionate. Life is immeasurable and it is not a commodity. R.K. Malik's case was decided in the year 2009. Now the cost of living has increased. There is inflation and what has to be considered by the Courts/Tribunal is whether a just compensation is awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Few decisions on the principles of just compensation is reproduced hereunder: (i) In R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , wherein, the Apex Court held as follows: "In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards." (ii) In Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India reported in 1999 (6) SCC 667 , at Paragraph 128, held as follows: “The object of an award of damages is to give the plaintiff compensation for damage, loss or injury he has suffered. The elements of damage recognised by law are divisible into two main groups: pecuniary and non- pecuniary. While the pecuniary loss is capable of being arithmetically worked out, the non-pecuniary loss is not so calculable. Non-pecuniary loss is compensated in terms of money, not as a substitute or replacement for other money, but as a substitute, what Mcgregor says, is generally more important than money: it is the best that a court can do. In Re: The Medianna (1900) A.C. 1300, Lord Halsbury L.C. observed as under: "How is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? In Re: The Medianna (1900) A.C. 1300, Lord Halsbury L.C. observed as under: "How is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact sum of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident...But nevertheless the law recognises that as a topic upon which damages may be given." (iii) In yet another decision in Divisonal Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and another reported in (2003) 7 SCC 197 , at Paragraph 12, the Supreme Court has held that, "Broadly speaking, in the case of death the basis of compensation is loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents of the deceased which includes pecuniary benefits to the dependents of the deceased which includes pecuniary loss, expenses etc. and loss to the estate. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the legal representatives due to the sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and should neither be unreasonable, excessive, nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of human life and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation; but amount recoverable depends on broad facts and circumstances of each case. It should neither be punitive against whom claim is decreed nor should it be a source of profit for the person in whose favour it is awarded." At Paragraph 15 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held that, "Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just", a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness, and non-arbitrariness. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just", a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness, and non-arbitrariness. If it is not so, it cannot be just." (iv) In Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka reported in (2009) 6 SCC 1 = 2010 ACJ 38 (SC), the Supreme Court, comprising of three Hon'ble Judges Bench was dealing with a case arising out of a complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While enhancing the compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from Rs.15 lakhs to Rs.1 crore, the Hon'ble Bench made the following observations which can appropriately be applied for deciding the petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act: “We must emphasise that the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The “adequate compensation” that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned. ...At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-a-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity.” (emphasis supplied) (v) In Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan reported in (2009) 13 SCC 422 , the Apex Court reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act should be just and also identified the factors which should be kept in mind while determining the amount of compensation. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below: “The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms. The question as to the methodology required to be applied for determination of compensation as regards prospective loss of future earnings, however, as far as possible should be based on certain principles. A person may have a bright future prospect; he might have become eligible to promotion immediately; there might have been chances of an immediate pay revision, whereas in another (sic situation) the nature of employment was such that he might not have continued in service; his chance of promotion, having regard to the nature of employment may be distant or remote. It is, therefore, difficult for any court to lay down rigid tests which should be applied in all situations. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or guess work may be inevitable. That may be so. In the Indian context several other factors should be taken into consideration including education of the dependants and the nature of job. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or guess work may be inevitable. That may be so. In the Indian context several other factors should be taken into consideration including education of the dependants and the nature of job. In the wake of changed societal conditions and global scenario, future prospects may have to be taken into consideration not only having regard to the status of the employee, his educational qualification; his past performance but also other relevant factors, namely, the higher salaries and perks which are being offered by the private companies these days. In fact while determining the multiplicand this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jashuben, 2008 ACJ 1097 (SC), held that even dearness allowance and perks with regard thereto from which the family would have derived monthly benefit, must be taken into consideration. One of the incidental issues which has also to be taken into consideration is inflation. Is the practice of taking inflation into consideration wholly incorrect? Unfortunately, unlike other developed countries in India there has been no scientific study. It is expected that with the rising inflation the rate of interest would go up. In India it does not happen. It, therefore, may be a relevant factor which may be taken into consideration for determining the actual ground reality. No hard-and-fast rule, however, can be laid down there for.” (emphasis supplied) 9. Considering the passage of time, since the decision in R.K. Malik's case, has been rendered and other aspects, stated supra, the award of Rs.3,40,000/-, to the family, cannot at any stretch of imagination, be said as bonanza or manna to the family members, who have lost a young boy, in the accident. In view of the discussion and decisions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation and hence, the award is sustained. 10. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit, the respondents are permitted to withdraw the same, by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.