R.K. Verma, J.
1. This is an appeal by the parents of the deceased minor Mukesh Kumar Moda, under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, in Claim Case No. 5 of 1984 dated 9.4.1986, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000/- in respect of the death of the deceased by a motor accident, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:
On 3.11.1983, the date of the incident, while the minor Mukesh Kumar Moda, aged 9 years, was witnessing the Dipawali lighting, standing in front of his house, at about 8 p.m., the driver, respondent No. 4, who was driving the truck bearing registration No. CPS 8764, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3, insurance company, drove the truck rashly and negligently with the result that the truck dashed against the deceased Mukesh Kumar, who was crushed to death on the spot.
3. On a claim petition having been filed by the appellant parents of the deceased minor Mukesh Kumar against the owner, driver and the insurance company, the learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case found that the deceased Mukesh Kumar died in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver, respondent No. 2 and held the driver, owner and the insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation in respect of death of the deceased minor Mukesh Kumar, son of the claimants-appellants and also awarded interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.
Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount of compensation as awarded, the claimants-appellants have filed this appeal against the award.
4. In this case, Rs. 15,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the claimants by an interim award dated 12.8.1985 on the principle of no fault liability under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the final award, which is under appeal, the learned Tribunal has determined the total compensation payable in respect of the death of the victim Mukesh Kumar as Rs. 20,000 out of which Rs. 15,000/- had already been paid under the interim award.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the deceased Mukesh Kumar, aged 9 years, was son of a cloth merchant and was a school-going boy studying in second standard and was a bright student as is stated in the evidence of the Headmistress of the school, Manjula Sharma, AW 2.
6. It has been submitted that the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal, in respect of the death of the deceased son of the claimants is quite inadequate in the circumstances of the case.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, namely, the owner of the offending truck and the insurance company has submitted that in respect of the death by motor accident of the deceased child the amount of compensation payable cannot be a large sum because of the uncertainties of life and prospects of career, necessarily involved in the case of a growing child. Learned counsel cited a decision of this court in M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal v. Yasin 1974 ACJ 358 (MP) and a decision of the Supreme Court in C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhi Kuttan Nair 1970 ACJ 110 (SC), in support of his submission that in respect of death of a child aged 12 years or 8 years a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was an adequate compensation since the principle for assessment of compensation is that the claimants must prove that they have lost a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage by the death of the deceased and not a mere speculative possibility of pecuniary benefit.
8. Jurisprudence of compensation for motor accident has since developed in the direction of no fault liability and the need for compensation on generous scales for loss of human life and as such the aforesaid cases cited by the learned counsel are no more comparable cases for determining compensation in the instant case.
9. In the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), cited by the learned counsel, it was observed thus:
Social justice, the command of the Constitution, is being violated by the State itself by neglecting road repairs, ignoring deadly overloads and contesting liability after nationalising the bulk of bus transport and the whole of general insurance business. The jurisprudence of compensation for motor accidents must develop in the direction of no fault liability and the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly, since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.
10. Human life is valuable and social justice in a democracy requires adequate social security for the person moving on a public road. If the life of an individual is terminated prematurely on account of a motor accident the amount of compensation awardable in respect of death of the victim of the accident should be a reasonable sum on generous scales, having regard to the concept of human dignity in a democracy and the preamble of our Constitution which seeks to assure the dignity of the individual.
11. The enactment of Section 92-A by amending Act No. 47 of 1982 in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, providing for the amount of compensation in respect of death of a person by motor accident as Rs. 15,000/-on the principle of no fault liability and thereafter the provision of analogous Section 140 in the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, providing for the amount of compensation in respect of death of any person as Rs. 25,000 instead of Rs. 15,000/- ensures the basic minimum valuation of human life, even if no pecuniary advantage could have been expected by the survivors of the deceased had he been alive. The consideration of pecuniary advantage receivable from the deceased for the death by accident is relevant only if such pecuniary advantage could give rise to a claim based on fault liability, exceeding the amount of no fault liability.
12. The provision of minimum compensation of Rs. 15,000/- in Section 92-A introduced by amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by amending Act No. 47 of 1982 and the provision of minimum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in the analogous Section 140 of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, must be taken as guidelines by the Claims Tribunals for determining compensation on generous scales with the restriction that the amount of compensation shall not be lower than the said statutory amount of liability provided on no fault liability principle.
13. The provisions of Section 92-A of the Act of 1939 and the analogous Section 140 of the new Act provide for the basic minimum compensation for loss of human life even where the deceased happens to be a disabled child or a decrepit old person who may have been in pecuniary terms only a liability on the family. As such, it would be reasonable to assess compensation amount higher than the basic minimum in case of a child, who, on account of physical and mental ability, holds promise of assistance to the parents in their later life.
14. In the instant case, the deceased Mukesh Kumar Moda, aged 9 years, was a bright school-going boy as per evidence of the Headmistress of the school. There is no evidence of any physical disability in the boy and, therefore, it could be reasonably expected by the claimants-parents that he would have been of valuable assistance to them in their later life. The learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation in respect of death as Rs. 20,000/-. To my mind, the amount assessed appears to be on the lower side and cannot be said to be adequate compensation. I, therefore, think it just and proper to enhance the amount of compensation awarded to Rs. 25,000/- for a fair and just compensation payable to the appellants-claimants by the respondents. The rate of interest of 6 per cent as awarded by the learned Tribunal is quite low and the same deserves to be modified as 12 per cent. Thus, the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 has cited a decision of this court in Rukmabai v. Ramlal 1988 ACJ 351 (MP), which was a case of motor accident which took place on 14.7.1979 before coming into force of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, wherein it has been observed thus:
In my opinion, it is not necessary to decide the question whether or not Section 92-A is retrospective in its operation. There is, however, an important aspect which must be noticed in the provision of Section 92-A. By providing a minimum compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the loss of life resulting from a motor accident, the legislative norm for minimum compensation for loss of life has been set forth and while awarding just compensation for the death resulting from a motor accident, the Tribunal, or the High Court in appeal, cannot lose sight of the fact that assessment of compensation on merits, which is largely based on guesswork, must be in accord with the principle that compensation for loss of life has to be at least Rs. 15,000/-. While accepting the principle that compensation in respect of the death resulting from a motor accident must be at least Rs. 15,000/-, it would not be reasonable to make a distinction in determining compensation in respect of the death by motor accident whether occurring before or after coming into force of Section 92-A.
16. The above observation is also applicable with reference to Section 140 of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in respect of the motor accident in the instant case, which took place on 3.11.1983, i.e., prior to coming into force of Section 140 of the new Act. In this view of the matter also, the amount of compensation would have been Rs. 25,000/-with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
17. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified inasmuch as the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation in respect of death of the deceased with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation instead of Rs. 20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.