ORDER This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 26th November, 2011 and award dated 15th December, 2011 passed by District Judge-cum-Claims Tribunal, Gopalganj in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No. 17 of 2010, awarding a sum of Rs. 20,25,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum as compensation of death of one Raman Tiwary @ Yunish Tiwary aged about 19 years and student of Diploma in Information Science at S.C.T. Polytechnic, Bangalore, who died on 13.12.2008 in an accident taking place at about 7.00 a.m. near village Sirisia Babu Tola under P.S. Kuchaikote in the District of Gopalganj by a Bus, bearing Registration No. – BR-28A-5994 coming towards Kuchaikote while the deceased was going on Motor-Cycle, bearing Registration No. – BR-28B-3155 belonging to his relative. Admittedly, Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 193 of 2008 was instituted at the instance of village Chowkidar, wherein, the driver of the said Bus has been facing trial after submission of the charge-sheet. 2. Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried and his parents are claimants, who came forward with a case that the deceased having good academic record and already passed second year of his studies had not only been continuing the remaining studies, but simultaneously had also earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month through private tuition and parting with handsome amount to his parents. At the time of accident, he was going on the bike with others and in precarious condition brought to hospital where after some treatment, he died. Consequently, a claim for Rs. 39, 25,000/- was put forward. 3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the claimants have not been coming with clean hands as they are conspicuously silent about other companions of the deceased on the bike. Practically no eye-witness has been examined and it was the deceased, who having two more pillion riders was instrumental in fatal accident and he was simply an student having no other income. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the claimants-respondents submitted that on the point of income, one of the pupils of the deceased has already been examined besides another witness having seen the occurrence from a distance of about two Lagas, but the learned counsel could not explained how and under what circumstances, the informant of the case and the pillion riders could not be produced and examined. 4. 4. Before going into other materials, Exhibits - 1 & 2 respectively the First Information Report and the Charge-sheet, submitted in Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 193 of 2008 need to be examined and considered. From the Fardbeyan of the Chowkidar (not examined) which forms part of the First Information Report (Exhibit -1), it appears that on the said bike three persons were going on and dashed with a Bus, wherein, one of them, identified as Kisan Sah, S/o Dwarika Sah of Village Gaddi Tola, P.S. Mazagadh, District Gopalganj, was died on the spot and remaining two, including the present deceased, Raman Tiwary @ Yunish Tiwary and Vinod Sah, S/o Jagar Tiwary of Village Gawandri, P.S. Thawe were sent to hospital in injured state for treatment. Exhibit - 2 (Charge-sheet) indicates that remaining two injured persons, including the deceased, also died one by one, but this is unfortunate that the claimants are silent about all such happenings. 5. The Claim Tribunal also did not take care of, even there is nothing on the record to show as to whether there is/are any other claim case/cases arising out of same accident preferred/pending or not. The claimant, the father of the deceased, was examined as A.W. 1 in spite of stating filing of the Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 193 of 2008 and submission of Charge-sheet against the Driver of ill fated Bus, conspicuously silent about other injured persons/deceased or anyone as pillion rider. Though, in cross-examination, he admits that one Kisan Sah was also accompanying his son, but still he maintained silence about fate of said Kisan Sah (who as per Exhibit - 1 died at the spot) and Vinod Sah, another injured (subsequently died as per Exhibit - 2). 6. A.W. 2, Kamlesh Singh, the person having house at a distance of two Lagas from the place of occurrence is also silent about anyone else sustained injury or the deceased during accident. He in examination-in-chief and during cross-examination accepts that he arrived at the place of accident within five minutes, found the bike and deceased (Raman Tiwary @ Yunish Tiwary) lying. The informant and police arrived at the place subsequent to his arrival and anyhow he admits about one pillion rider, but completely unknown and had strictly negatived existence of second pillion rider and is also dead sure that except the deceased, none else suffered any injury during accident. The informant and police arrived at the place subsequent to his arrival and anyhow he admits about one pillion rider, but completely unknown and had strictly negatived existence of second pillion rider and is also dead sure that except the deceased, none else suffered any injury during accident. But, if at all, one pillion rider, undisputedly an eye-witness of the occurrence, competent to say about the minor details had been withheld for no reasons, if statements, as contained in Exhibits - 1 & 2 are ignored and if they are to be considered, this A.W. 2 is nothing, but telling lie. His testimony cannot be accepted. 7. A.W. 3 is one Dhrup Sah, who likewise other two witnesses also silent about anyone else either injured or dead in examination-in-chief, but during cross-examination admits that at the relevant time, while he was going to meet natural call, the offending bus as well as the bike, both were available at the place. However, in spite of being illiterate person, he had not been remembering the numbers etc., but likewise the statement of A.W. 2, his statement also not to be relied upon, if at all, Exhibit - 1 & 2 are to be considered and there appears no reason to discard the statements contained in Exhibit - 1 & 2 in absence of any otherwise pleading and proof. 8. A.W. 4 is the person only witness on the point of income of the deceased and claims to be one of the pupil of the deceased and paying Rs. 500/- as tuition fee and in cross-examination said that he had been doing M.C.A. (Master of Computer Application) at Bangalore, but unable to say the details of the institution etc. of the deceased, who was a student doing under graduate diploma course and this witness in spite of claiming himself as an student of post graduate, further claims himself as one of the pupil of the deceased, without any further explanation. It appears difficult to accept his testimony rather being a co-villager of the deceased he appears coming to support the claim of the claimants about the income of the deceased. 9. Exhibit - 3 is the Postmortem Report. Exhibits - 4 to 10 are Identity Card, Mark-Sheets, Admission Paper of the deceased in the institution etc. Exhibits - 11 and 11/1 are the Driving Licenses of the deceased and driver of the Bus. 9. Exhibit - 3 is the Postmortem Report. Exhibits - 4 to 10 are Identity Card, Mark-Sheets, Admission Paper of the deceased in the institution etc. Exhibits - 11 and 11/1 are the Driving Licenses of the deceased and driver of the Bus. Exhibit - 12 is his Inquest Report, Exhibits -13 and 13/1 are the Insurance Papers. Exhibit - 14 is Registration Certificate of the Vehicles. But, not even a single chit is on the record to show the income of the deceased @ 15,000/- per month or any rate including transmission of handsome share to his parents either through money order or through bank draft. That apart, if at all, the deceased had been earning such a substantial amount, he came under net of income tax, but neither any PAN (Permanent Account Number) nor copy of income tax returns etc., if submitted, has been produced rather father of the deceased A.W. 1 in his cross-examination has clearly state that the deceased had no bank accounts and there is no paper showing his income. Simultaneously, he was also not aware about the deceased having any PAN Card or not. 10. Thus, in absence of any such material it cannot be accepted that the deceased had any income rather everything is to be considered on this undisputed position that he was an student, yet to complete his studies, enabling himself to have some engagement and earning. 11. What are required to be done and how much compensation can be given in such a situation to the claimant respondent no. 2 only i.e. mother of the deceased has elaborately been discussed by this Court in a case between “Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sri Shiv Shankar Singh & Ors.” passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 510 of 2011 vide order dated 09.04.2013, wherein, the various decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court have duly been considered and discussed, such as:- (i) “Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another” reported in “(2009) 6 SCC 121”, (ii) “Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others” reported in “ (2012) 11 SCC 738 ”, (iii) “Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Mohammad. Tabbar and Another” reported in “ (2008) 12 SCC 165 ”, (iv) “R.K. Malik & Another Vs. Kiran Paul & Others” reported in “2009 ACJ (3) 1924 (S.C.)”, (v) “Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others” reported in “ (2012) 11 SCC 738 ”, (iii) “Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Mohammad. Tabbar and Another” reported in “ (2008) 12 SCC 165 ”, (iv) “R.K. Malik & Another Vs. Kiran Paul & Others” reported in “2009 ACJ (3) 1924 (S.C.)”, (v) “Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others” reported in “(2001) 8 SCC 197”, (vi) “M.S. Grewal and Another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and Others” reported in “ (2001) 8 SCC 151 ”, (vii) “General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs)” & Others” reported in “ (1994) 2 SCC 176 ”, (viii) “Sarla Dixit (Smt) & Another Vs. Balwant Yadav & Others” reported in “ (1996) 3 SCC 179 ” and (ix) “State of Haryana and Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others” reported in “ (2003) 7 SCC 484 ”. 12. And the conclusion arrived therein on the principle, which is equally applicable in the case in hand. The deceased was not minor, but an student aged about 19 years having no earning, hence his income is to be assessed, as prescribed under Second Schedule & M.V. Act, Rs. 15,000/- per annum and the multiplier applicable is 18 bringing the amount to Rs. 2,70,000/-. As per Schedule, 1/3rd amount is to be deducted as personal and living expenditure, but in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others” (supra) taking into consideration the claimant being mother, 50% is to be deducted, bringing the amount up to Rs. 1,35,000/- which is to be added with Rs. 5,000/- each for “loss of estate” and “funeral expenses” totaling to Rs. 10,000/- as prescribed in the Schedule. Thus, under the heading “pecuniary loss” the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- (1,35,000/- + 10,000/-). 13. In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 510 of 2011 (supra), as non-pecuniary loss Rs. 3,00,000/- has been awarded taking into consideration that, in fact, no amount can be a replacement, but, double of the amount, which was awarded in case minor school going children may said to be adequate, though this amount also cannot meet the loss suffered by the parents due to untimely death of their prospective son. This also appears just in present case, since in both the cases deceased appears having good academic record and future prospect. This also appears just in present case, since in both the cases deceased appears having good academic record and future prospect. Thus, dependency comes to (1,45,000/- + 3,00,000/-) Rs. 4,45,000/-. 14. However, further taking into consideration, the unfortunate facts and materials of the instant case, wherein, the deceased undisputedly had been driving a bike though having valid license, but carrying two more persons besides him which is violation of law, the Claim Tribunal found it proper to deduct 15% of the entitlement due to such act. This could in absence of any other material, need not be disturbed. In that view of the matter, entitlement of the real claimant is to be reduced by 15% from total sum of Rs. 4,45,000/- . 15. As stated earlier right from the pleading till trial, the claimants appear not claiming with clean hands. They remained silent about other companions of the deceased rather during cross-examination; they did not admit existence of second pillion rider as the reasons best known to them and even one of the witnesses vehemently claimed that except the deceased no one sustained any injury. Such material concealments for no reasons explained; under the law, disentitle the claimants for any relief. However, taking into consideration the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of “Smt. Manju Shri Raha and Others etc. Vs. B.L. Gupta and Others etc.” reported in “AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1158”, wherein, paragraph – 6 reads as such:– “6. ……… . Pleadings have to be interpreted not with formalistic rigour but with latitude or awareness of low legal literacy or poor people. …………..” In stead of completely denying the claimant, the mother of the deceased the entire benefit, but as a token 05% more from the total sum of Rs. 4,45,000/- is to be reduced. That means, claimant no. 2 (respondent-mother) is entitled only for 80% of total sum i.e. Rs. 3,56,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of actual payment. 16. With the above modification in the award, the appeal stands disposed of, on contest, without cost. The appellant (Insurer) is directed to make the payment within a period of two months. The amount, if any, already lying deposited with Claim Tribunal Below or paid to the claimants earlier shall be adjusted. 16. With the above modification in the award, the appeal stands disposed of, on contest, without cost. The appellant (Insurer) is directed to make the payment within a period of two months. The amount, if any, already lying deposited with Claim Tribunal Below or paid to the claimants earlier shall be adjusted. The statutory deposit shall send to the Claim Tribunal to be paid to the claimant-respondent no. 2 against the amount so awarded.