JUDGMENT By the Court.—The claimants have preferred this first appeal from order challenging the judgment and award dated 28.1.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 384 of 2005, by which an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been awarded together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, if the payment is satisfied within thirty days, otherwise it would be 11.5 per cent per annum together with condition that the same shall be deposited by the two claimants in a Nationalized Bank for a fixed term of five years. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Km. Sunita Tiwari, aged about 17 years, met with an accident on 10.7.2006 at 6.50 a.m. near Mushi Pulia, Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow while she was going to her school on a bicycle. She was hit by the driver of a truck bearing registration No. HR 38-H/3591, who drove it rashly and negligently, due to which she died instantaneously. An FIR was lodged. The claim petition was preferred against the owner and insurer by the parents, whom she was the only child. The owner did not contest the case, However, the Insurance Company contested the case inter alia on the grounds that the claim petition deserves to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties, as the driver has not been made a party and no accident took place; the truck was being plied against the terms of insurance policy; the vehicle was not driven by the person having a valid driving licence, unless proved otherwise. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. The claimants filed copies of registration certificate, insurance policy, driving licence, fitness certificate and route permit. The Tribunal concluded that the claimants have succeeded in proving their case but while determining the amount of compensation it has innovated its own law by holding that her parents were dependent up to fifty per cent upon the deceased and, as such, her dependency was determined to be Rs. 7,500/- annually, out of 50% of Rs. 15,000/- and upon Rs. 7,500/- the multiplier of ‘13’ was applied and Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded by misinterpreting the law on this score. 4. In this regard, it is necessary to have a glimpse upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7,500/- annually, out of 50% of Rs. 15,000/- and upon Rs. 7,500/- the multiplier of ‘13’ was applied and Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded by misinterpreting the law on this score. 4. In this regard, it is necessary to have a glimpse upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The law laid down in the cases of Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd. v. Rajapriya, 2005 ACJ 1441 , General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC) and also other English cases as Ward v. James, (1965) 1 R 563, have been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in R.K. Malik and another v. Kiran Pal and others, 2009 ACJ 1924 and held the multiplier method. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly relied upon the English law in the case of Ward v. James, (1965) 1 R 563, in which it has been observed : “He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. Yet Judges and juries have to do the best they can and give him what they think is fair. No wonder they find it well-nigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure is bound to be for the most part a conventional sum. The Judges have worked out a pattern, and they keep it in line with the changes in the value of money.” 6. Lord Atkinson aptly observed in Taff Vale Rly. Co. v. Jenkins, (1911-13) All ER 160, as follows : “In the case of death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived 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.” 7. Apart from above, it is necessary to mention that the claimant No. 1-father, aged about 47 years and claimant No. 2-mother, aged about 45 years had admittedly the deceased as their only child. The mental agony of the claimants cannot be overlooked and lost sight of the fact that they had lost their all hopes and aspirations for life. There is nothing but an unending vacuum and darkness in their lives. The mental agony of the claimants cannot be overlooked and lost sight of the fact that they had lost their all hopes and aspirations for life. There is nothing but an unending vacuum and darkness in their lives. This human approach, compassion and feeling of sorrow or pity for the suffering of fellow Indian must be made a target for all the Courts and Tribunals which is a progressive inclination to show charity. The learned Tribunal, in the present case, has considered the claimants’ version supportively that the deceased was a brilliant student and was having a bright future, but an inhumane amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been awarded in violation of law, as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 8. In view of the law, as discussed in the abovementioned cases, the multiplier of ‘16’ is applicable, by considering the annual income of Rs. 24,000/-, after deducting one third of the amount, which the deceased would have spent upon herself if had she been alive (at a notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month) comes to Rs. 3,84,000/-. Besides this amount, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- as loss of estate. Therefore, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,88,500/-. In view of this, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award deserves to be set aside. 9. We accordingly partly allow the appeal and set aside the award inasmuch as it relates to the amount of compensation, which comes to Rs. 3,88,500/-. It is made clear that we have not interfered in the rate of interest, ordinary or penal, as determined by the learned Tribunal. ——————