Judgment:
S.S. Sharma, J.
1. This appeal by the claimants is against the award dated 29-7-80 given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandleshwar in Claim Case No. 61/78.
2 In the accident which occurred on 8-6-78 at about 8 a.m., Jinat then aged about 11 years, who was the daughter of the appellants, was knocked down by the passenger bus bearing registration No. M.P F. 2202. This passenger bus was then owned by respondent No 1. Respondent No. 2 Prakash was then driving the bus The bus was insured with respondent No. 3. It was alleged that the said Jinat was knocked down as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. Jinat had died on the spot.
3. The owner of the bus had disputed the allegations of the claimants. The Insurance Company had also denied its liability inter alia on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- as compensation with interest at 4% per annum from the date of application till its realisation. The Tribunal has found that the passenger bus was being driven rashly and negligently, as a result of which Jinat was knocked down and she died on the spot. The injuries indicate that she was run over by the bus. It has also found that respondent Prakash, who was in the employment of the owner of the bus was then driving the vehicle.
4. The grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the compensation amount, as has been awarded by the Tribunal, is much low and deserves to be enhanced. The other grievance made was that the rate of interest should have been higher than 4%.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants in support of his contention about the higher compensation amount, referred to a decision in Phubbi Lai and Anr. v. U P. State Road Transport Corporation 1981 ACJ 296. In that case for the death of a girl aged 6 years, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 7,200/-. In Phubbi Lal's case (supra), it was observed that in view of the fact that the girl would have been normally married at the age of 15-16 years, she would have rendered services to her parents for about 10 years. The loss of service rendered by the deceased was assessed at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month. Thus, the award of Rs. 3,000/- for the loss of service to be rendered by the deceased was held to be justified. Yet another decision referred to was in Manmohan Samp Kaushal and Anr. v. Mela Ram and Ors. 1977 ACJ 140, in which for Miss Shobhna's death, who was then aged 11 years and studying, Rs. 8,000/- was assessed as compensation, that being the pecuniary loss of her affection and service to the family. Learned Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company, however, referred to two decisions of this Court. One in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Bhagirath, Bhopal v. Yasin and Ors. 1974 ACJ 358 and the other in Sitaram and Ors. v. The Nagar Palika Parshad, Mandsaur and Ors. (1982 ACJ 63). In the case of Yasin and Ors. (supra) the death was of a male child aged 12 years and Rs. 5000/-, which were awarded as compensation by the Tribunal was held to be just and proper. In the case of Sitaram and Ors. (supra) the compensation amount was assessed at Rs. 2,000/- in respect of the death of a female child aged 10 years.
6. In the instant case Abdul Rahim, the father of the girl stated her age to be 10 years at the time of the accident. He also stated that at the age of about 15 years, the girls in their community are generally married. There is absolutely no evidence worth the name with regard to any service that the child was then rendering in the family. What he has stated is that Jinat was a good looking girl and was a student of Class 3. She being in Class 3 at the age of 10 years by itself depicts that she was not a brilliant child. All that he states is that owing to her death he received a shock. The question with regard to the heads in which compensation can be allowed in the case of death of child has been considered in the case of Yasin & On. (supra).
7. In the instant case the appellant-claimants in their claim petition have not given the different heads in which they claimed the compensation. A total amount of Rs. 25000/- as compensation has been claimed. In the evidence also Abdul Rahim has not stated any such fact, whereby the question of compensation under different heads could be considered. However, it could certainly be taken into account that Abdul Rahim was employed as a driver and Jinat the deceased would have been of service in the family for another about 4 years. Taking that fact into consideration and also further taking into account that value of rupee has gone down, compensation of an amount of Rs. 2,000/- would in the circumstances be just and reasonable. To that extent the compensation amount deserves to be increased.
8. The other grievance about the rate of interest also, in my opinion, is quite justified. The rate of interest of 4% as has been awarded by the Tribunal, is in my opinion, low. The rate of interest also deserves to be enhanced to 6% per annum.
9. Consequently, this appeal is party allowed. The appellants shall get Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and would also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on that amount. The award of the Tribunal stands modified accordingly. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to the costs of this appeal, which shall be borne by the parties as incurred.