JUDGMENT : Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Claimants against the Judgment and/or Order dated March 11, 2002 passed by Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Additional Court, Burdwan, in M.A.C. Case No. 78 of 2001/350 of 2001 whereby the Learned Judge dismissed the application, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. 2. FACTS :- “It is case of the claimants that Sk. Shepon @ Jafar is the son of the claimants. On 4/8/2001 at about 12.30 hours when he was playing by the side of Suri Road near Pirtola of village Kayarapur, at that time vehicle No. BR.17G/1572 was proceeding with high speed from Guskara to Burdwan and the driver lost his control and dashed the deceased Jafar Ali @ Shepon and due to such accident he sustained grievous injuries on his person and died on the spot. The death was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. One Sk. Moharam lodged F.I.R at Guskara Beat House which was forwarded to Aushgram P.S., post-mortem was held. The claimants have claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- only as compensation.” 3. Opposite Party/National Insurance Co. Ltd. contested the case by filing written statement denying all the material allegations made in the application. The specific case of the contesting O.P. is that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The story of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is also a myth and the same has been alleged for the purpose of the case. The manner of accident as alleged in the application is totally false. It was the victim who was responsible for the alleged accident and that too the reckless act of the victim was the sole cause of the alleged accident. The vehicle was being driven in a moderate speed observing the traffic rules. The alleged accident took place solely for the negligence and fault of the victim himself and there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in question. It is averred in the written statement that the victim had no occupation nor had did he have income of Rs. 2,500/- per month. The petitioners have made such false statement for getting higher compensation. It is averred in the written statement that the victim had no occupation nor had did he have income of Rs. 2,500/- per month. The petitioners have made such false statement for getting higher compensation. The contesting O.P. prayed for dismissal of the claim application with cost to O.P. 4. The Claimants have examined two witnesses and proved relevant documents, which were marked as Exhibits. 5. Considering the materials on record, the tribunal held as follows:- “M.A.C. Case No. 78 of 2001 M.A.C. Case No. 350 of 2001 Dated: March 11, 2002 On consideration of the evidence on record I hold that the claimants have failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and because of such reason only deceased Sk. Shepon @ Jafar met with an accident. The claimants have also failed to prove the age and income of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to have any relief u/s 166 of the M.V. Act. Claimants have failed to prove that the driver of the vehicle No. 17G/1572 was responsible for the alleged accident. Issue nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are decided accordingly. Hence, Ordered that the M.V. Case under Section 166 of the M.V. Act be and the same is dismissed. Sd/- Judge, M.A.C. Tribunals, 1St. Addl. Court, Burdwan.” 6. From the materials and evidence on record, it appears that :- I. The tribunal held that:- a) Though the eyewitness (P.W.-2) has clearly stated that the offending vehicle was proceeding with High Speed, it does not mean rash and negligent driving. b) Aushgram P.S. Case under Section 279/304A of IPC was registered in this case. Section 279 of IPC, lays down:- “279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.—Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” Ingredients of offence.- The essential ingredients of the offence under sec. 279 are as follows: (1) The accused was driving a vehicle or riding; (2) He was doing so on a public way; (3) He was also doing so rashly or negligently; (4) The act of driving or riding was to endanger human life or was likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.” Section 304A of IPC, lays down:- “304A. Causing death by negligence.-Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Ingredients.- To bring a cause of homicide under sec. 304A IPC, the following conditions must exist, namely, (1) there must be death of the person in question; (2) the accused must have caused such death; and (3) that such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide - State of Punjab v Balwinder Singh (2012)2 SCC 182 .” c) P.W. 2, an eyewitness has deposed as follows :- “The offending vehicle was proceeding with a high speed and as a result of which the driver of the offending vehicle lost his control over the vehicle and the vehicle was capsized in a ditch and the deceased was standing by the side of the ditch.” d) Rash driving means, driving a vehicle without following the safety rules and violating driving rules. The careless behaviour of the drivers are often the cause of rash and negligent driving. The meaning of the word ‘Rash’ is acting without due consideration. The meaning of the word ‘negligent’ is failure to use normal care. e) The vehicle in this case is a lorry. A lorry driving at High Speed is clearly a case of acting without due consideration, thus rash and going at High Speed shows that the act was also clearly negligent, as the accident in this case occurred due to the failure on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle to use normal case, as he was driving at High Speed. f) Thus the finding of the tribunal is wrong. f) Thus the finding of the tribunal is wrong. It is clearly proved by the materials on record, that the vehicle was being driven at High Speed and the accident was caused due to such rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. II. The accident in this case took place on 04.08.2001. School certificate of the victim shows his date of birth as 03.07.1987. The victim was thus aged 14 years at the time of his death. III. Learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the vehicle in this case was not involved in the accident as the seizure list is dated 08.08.2001 and the accident occurred on 04.08.2001. IV. The following judgments have been relied upon by the Insurance Company:- 1) Minu B. Mehta and Anr. Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Anr., (1977) 2 SCC 441 . 2) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Meena Variyal and Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 428 . 3) Surender Kumar Arora and Anr. Vs. Manoj Bisla and Ors., (2012) 4 SCC 552 . 4) Reshma Kumari and Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan and Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 . 5) Lachoo Ram and Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 13 SCC 254 . 6) Nishan Singh and Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2018) 6 SCC 765 . In the present case, the offending vehicle has been seized being involved in the accident caused by rash and negligent driving. The vehicle had valid licence and insurance. V. The Claim of the victim being employed and earning Rs. 2500/- per month has been disbelieved by the tribunal and the claim has been dismissed. As discussed earlier, the victim was aged 14 years at the time accident. The Supreme Court in Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors., Civil Appeal No. ………. of 2022 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5345 Of 2019), dated 13th October, 2022, has held:- “8. Reverting to computation of compensation in the facts of this case, a child died in a road accident at the age of 12 years while playing in front of his house. He was studying in 5th class in Nehru Academy, Giridh Road, Jamtala, Dumri, however it is required to be seen how the computation of compensation may be made. Reverting to computation of compensation in the facts of this case, a child died in a road accident at the age of 12 years while playing in front of his house. He was studying in 5th class in Nehru Academy, Giridh Road, Jamtala, Dumri, however it is required to be seen how the computation of compensation may be made. As per the ocular statement given by her mother, it is clear that the deceased child was a brilliant student of Class 5 and if he had not met with the accident, he would have definitely become an officer in future. In the said factual matrix, the compensation is required to be determined. 12. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the II nd Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (Supra) and Rs. 25,000/- in Krurvan Ansari in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively. 13. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs. 30,000/- including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and if we add Rs. 50,000/- in conventional heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs. 5,00,000/-. As per the judgment of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,00,000/- up to the value of the Claim Petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-, the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-. 14. 2,00,000/- up to the value of the Claim Petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-, the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-. 14. At this state, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa Vs. Grudaya Singh and others (2003) 2 SCC 274 , it was observed that under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribuna/Court ought to award „just? compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.” VI. Therefore the age of the victim being 14 years, notional earning of Rs 30,000/- yearly be accepted and multiplier of 15 be applied, (Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 ) and (Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors., (Supra) (Para) with loss of dependency which comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and adding Rs. 84,000/- under conventional heads i.e. General damages of Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of child and funeral expenses (General damages Loss of estate: Rs.15,000/- Loss of Child: Rs.40,000/- and Funeral expenses: Rs.15,000/- respectively) (National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 )). General damages to be enhanced at the rate of 10% every three years. So 10% every three year since 2017 on 70,000/- will be Rs. 84,000/-. (Being 20%). Relying upon Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors., (Supra) no deduction is made. 7. Thus the ‘Just Compensation’ in this case would be as follow :- Annual Income Rs. 30,000/- Multiplier x 15 (30,000 x 15) Rs. 4, 50,000/- Add: General damages Loss of estate: Rs.15,000/- Loss of Child: Rs.40,000/- Funeral expenses: Rs.15,000/. (Rs. 70,000 + 20% = Rs. 84,000) Rs. 84,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 5,34,000/- 8. Admittedly, the Appellants/Claimants have not received any compensation in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 30,000/- Multiplier x 15 (30,000 x 15) Rs. 4, 50,000/- Add: General damages Loss of estate: Rs.15,000/- Loss of Child: Rs.40,000/- Funeral expenses: Rs.15,000/. (Rs. 70,000 + 20% = Rs. 84,000) Rs. 84,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 5,34,000/- 8. Admittedly, the Appellants/Claimants have not received any compensation in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the Claimants are now entitled to a total amount of compensation of Rs. 5,34,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till deposit. 9. The Respondent No. 1/Insurance Company shall deposit the total amount, along with the interest, with the learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta, within a period of six weeks, who shall then release the amount in favour of the Claimants in equal proportion, upon satisfaction of their identity and payment of ad-valorem Court fees, if not already paid. 10. Order of tribunal in M.A.C. Case No. 78 of 2001/350 of 2001 dated March 11, 2002 passed by Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Additional Court, Burdwan, whereby the Learned Judge dismissed the application under Section 166 M.V. Act., is thus set aside. 11. FMA 1447 of 2008/FMAT 1539 of 2002 is allowed. 12. No order as to costs. 13. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 15. Copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Tribunal, along with the trial court records, if received. 16. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.