Judgment 1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties matter is heard finally. 2. This appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 31st January, 2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai allowing the application of the respondents filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1987 partly and directing the owner and the insurer to jointly or severally to pass amount of Rs.3,12,000/-alongwith interest at the rate of 9.25% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realisation to the respondents. The appellants who was insurer have impugned only part of the order passed by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.50,000/-awarded by the Tribunal for 'pain and suffering'. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the compensation of Rs.50,000/-awarded by the Tribunal could not have been awarded in case of accident resulting in death but can be awarded only to the person himself who met with fatal accident and suffers pain. 4. The next submission of the learned counsel is that the Tribunal could not have awarded interest at the rate of 9.25% per annum but could award at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 5. In support of the first submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (SMT) and another vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 1002 and in particular paragraph 19. It is submitted that the Supreme Court has categorically held that where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5000 to 10000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium but no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. Paragraph 19 of the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (SMT) and another (supra) reads thus:- 19. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps: Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added. 6. Learned counsel submits that though Supreme Court in case of R.K. Malik and another vs. Kiran Pal and another (2009) 14 SCC 1 has held that the court has power to award non pecuniary loss which includes compensation for pain and suffering the said judgment is distinguishable with the facts of this case on the ground that the Supreme Court in the said judgment was dealing with the case of the children who met with an accident whereas in this case the person who met with fatal accident has died and was not a child. It is submitted that in case of R.K. Malik and another (supra) Supreme Court has not considered its earlier judgment in case of Sarla Verma (SMT) & ors. (supra) which was binding on Supreme Court. 7. It is submitted that in case of R.K. Malik and another (supra) Supreme Court has not considered its earlier judgment in case of Sarla Verma (SMT) & ors. (supra) which was binding on Supreme Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand strongly placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of R.K. Malik and another (supra) and submits that the said judgment of the Supreme Court is decided at later point of time. The Supreme Court has considered several other judgments of Supreme Court on the issue of compensation and has held that it becomes duty of the court towards just compensation for non pecuniary loss such as pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has considered both the judgments of the Supreme Court and has held that the parents of the deceased have seen the death of the only son and the young son and this unexpected termination of the life of the deceased has non pecuniary compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. It is submitted that Supreme Court in case of R.K. Malik and another (supra) has held that pain and suffering is also one of the head of the compensation and it is duty of the court to award such compensation. 8. Perusal of the record indicates that son of the respondent no.1 who died in accident arising out of motor vehicle was 20 years old at the time of accident. The tribunal has rendered a finding that the parents of the deceased had seen death of their only son and young son which resulted into pain and suffering. Considering this such facts, tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not impugned the other part of the order passed by the tribunal. 9. In the case before the Supreme Court in case of R.K. Malik (supra) 29 children had died due to accident. Supreme Court after adverting to its earlier judgments on this issue and after quoting with approval Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, has dealt with issue of non pecuniary compensation. Paragraphs 9, 10, 13, 18, 20, 22, 27, 28 36, 37 and 40 of the said judgment which are relevant read thus:- 9. Supreme Court after adverting to its earlier judgments on this issue and after quoting with approval Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, has dealt with issue of non pecuniary compensation. Paragraphs 9, 10, 13, 18, 20, 22, 27, 28 36, 37 and 40 of the said judgment which are relevant read thus:- 9. In cases of motor accidents the endeavour is to put the dependents/claimants in the pre-accidental position. Compensation in cases of motor accidents, as in other matters, is paid for reparation of damages. The damages so awarded should be adequate sum of money that would put the party, who has suffered, in the same position if he had not suffered on account of the wrong. Compensation is therefore required to be paid for prospective pecuniary loss i.e. future loss of income/dependency suffered on account of the wrongful act. However, no amount of compensation can restore the lost limb or the experience of pain and suffering due to loss of life. Loss of a child, life or a limb can never be eliminated or ameliorated completely. 10. To put it simply-pecuniary damages cannot replace a human life or limb lost. Therefore, in addition to the pecuniary losses, the law recognises that payment should also be made for non pecuniary losses on account of, loss of happiness, pain, suffering and expectancy of life etc. The Act provides for payment of "just compensation" vide Section 166 and 168. It is left to the courts to decide what would be "just compensation" in facts of a case. 13. The real problem that arises in the cases of death of children is that they are not earning at the time of the accident. In most of the cases they were still studying and not working. However, under no stretch of imagination it can be said that the parents, who are appellants herein, have not suffered any pecuniary loss. In fact, Loss of dependency by its very nature is awarded for prospective or future loss. In this context, Lord Atkinson aptly observed in Taff Vale Rly. Co. v. Jenkins as follows: “11 … In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child's lifetime. In fact, Loss of dependency by its very nature is awarded for prospective or future loss. In this context, Lord Atkinson aptly observed in Taff Vale Rly. Co. v. Jenkins as follows: “11 … In case of the 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.” Then, how does one calculate pecuniary compensation for loss of future earnings and loss of dependency of the parents, grand parents etc. in the case of non-working student? 18. The other issue is with regard to non-pecuniary compensation to the appellants-dependents on the loss of human life, loss of company, companionship, happiness, pain and suffering, loss of expectation of life etc. In the Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 12, page 446, it has been stated with regard to non-pecuniary loss as follows: “1147. Non-pecuniary loss: the pattern. Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the Courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstance of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award. The fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassessment of these awards and to periodic reassessments of damages at certain key points in the pattern where the disability is readily identifiable and not subject to large variations in individual cases. ” 20. The Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [1995]1SCR75 , has observed as follows in para 9: “9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. ” 20. The Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [1995]1SCR75 , has observed as follows in para 9: “9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.” In this case, the Court awarded non-pecuniary special damages of Rs. 3, 00,000/- to the claimants. 22. 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. 27. In Lata Wadhwa (supra), wherein several persons including children lost their lives in a fire accident, the Court awarded substantial amount as compensation. No doubt, the Court noticed that the children who lost their lives were studying in an expensive school, had bright prospects and belonged to upper middle class, yet it cannot be said that higher compensation awarded was for deprivation of life and the pain and suffering undergone on loss of life due to financial status. 28. The term "conventional compensation" used in the said case has been used for non pecuniary compensation payable on account of pain and suffering as a result of death. 28. The term "conventional compensation" used in the said case has been used for non pecuniary compensation payable on account of pain and suffering as a result of death. The Court in the said case referred to Rs. 50, 000/- as conventional figure. The reason was loss of expectancy of life and pain and suffering on that account which was common and uniform to all regardless of the status. Unless there is a specific case departing from the conventional formula, non- pecuniary compensation should not be fixed on basis of economic wealth and background. 36. 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. 37. Besides, the Courts have been awarding compensation for pain and suffering and towards non-pecuniary damages. Reference in this regard can be made to R. D. Hattangadi case (supra). Further, the said compensation must be just and reasonable. 40. Needless to say, pecuniary damages seeks to compensate those losses which can be translated into money terms like loss of earnings, actual and prospective earning and other out of pocket expenses. In contrast, non-pecuniary damages include such immeasurable elements as pain and suffering and loss of amenity and enjoyment of life. In this context, it becomes duty of the court to award just compensation for non-pecuniary loss. As already noted it is difficult to quantify the non-pecuniary compensation, nevertheless, the endeavour of the Court must be to provide a just, fair and reasonable amount as compensation keeping in view all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration. We have noticed that the High Court in present case has enhanced the compensation in this category by Rs. 75, 000/-in all connected appeals. We have noticed that the High Court in present case has enhanced the compensation in this category by Rs. 75, 000/-in all connected appeals. We do not find any infirmity in that regard. 10. Supreme Court in case of R.K. Malik (supra) has held that 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. It is held that 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". In paragraph 24 of the said judgment it is held that head of compensation need not be restricted to a case where the injured person himself initiates action but is equally admissible if his dependent brings about the action. Supreme Court also adverted to its earlier judgment in case of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 151 and has held that pecuniary damages seeks to compensate those losses which can be translated into money terms like loss of earnings, actual and prospective earning and other out of pocket expenses. In contrast, non-pecuniary damages include such immeasurable elements as pain and suffering and loss of amenity and enjoyment of life. It is held that in this context, it becomes duty of the court to award just compensation for non-pecuniary loss. 11. In my view, tribunal having rendered a finding that parents of the deceased has seen the death of the only son who was 20 years old at the time of accident which resulted in severe pain for the parents. In my view compensation under the head of 'pain and suffering' is one of the head of the non pecuniary compensation which cannot otherwise compensate the legal heirs of the deceased victims. In my view, the tribunal has rightly awarded compensation for 'pain and suffering' to the legal heirs of the deceased so as to do complete justice. 12. In my view compensation under the head of 'pain and suffering' is one of the head of the non pecuniary compensation which cannot otherwise compensate the legal heirs of the deceased victims. In my view, the tribunal has rightly awarded compensation for 'pain and suffering' to the legal heirs of the deceased so as to do complete justice. 12. In my view compensation for 'pain and suffering' can be awarded also in case of death arising out of accident to the legal heirs of such person who has met with an accident. In my view, order of tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/-towards pain and suffering is reasonable and thus does not require any interference. 13. Supreme Court in case of R.K. Malik (supra) which is delivered later in point of time has considered its several judgments and has allowed claim for 'pain and suffering' to the legal heirs of the deceased expired due to fatal accident. I am respectfully bound by the said judgment which in my view is applicable to the facts of this case. 14. In so far as award of interest @ 9.5% is concerned, in my view the rate of @ 9.5% is reasonable and thus no interference is warranted. 15. I, therefore, pass the following order:- (a) Appeal is dismissed. (b) There shall be no order as to costs. (c) In view of the dismissal of the appeal, civil application does not survive and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (d) Office is directed to transmit the sum of Rs.25,000/-deposited by the appellant to the tribunal. It is made clear that the respondents would be at liberty to withdraw the entire amount deposited by the appellant before the tribunal.