Dipak Misra, J.
1. The moot question that arises for consideration in this appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is whether grant of compensation in a sum of Rs. 75,000 to the agonised parents who have sustained the loss of their daughter whose life spark was extinguished being dashed against by the Tempo owned by the appellant herein is justified or not. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant would like us to interfere with the award on a solitary ground that the deceased was a seventeen years old girl and would not have contributed to the parents for long, and hence the quantum determined by the Tribunal is not only excessive and illegal but also unpragmatic.
2. Before we deal with the contention of Mr. Agrawal which reflects the gender discrimination without any other factual foundation, it is essential to narrate some essential facts that unfold the tragic end of the victim Mahamaya.
3. The facts: In the afternoon of 7.5.93, Mahamaya, a student of 12th standard who was engaged in private tuition was going to her pupils' house on her bicycle. Near Maroda Sector, Tempo bearing registration No. 8052, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, respondent No. 3 herein, dashed against her cycle as a result of which she sustained multiple injuries. Eventually she succumbed to her injuries. The shocked and tortured parents knocked at the doors of the Tribunal for getting compensation for the death of their dear one by filing the Claim Case No. 11 of 1994.
4. It was pleaded before the Tribunal that Mahamaya was earning Rs. 1,100 per month and was contributing Rs. 1,000 to her parents. It was set forth that she was an intelligent girl and she would have got herself an employment but due to the unfortunate accident they had been deprived of the dependency. It was also pleaded that they spent Rs. 25,000 in her funeral expenses and they were entitled to the same. Making such averments they advanced a claim of Rs. 6,06,000 towards compensation.
5. The owner appellant resisted the claim of the claimants on the ground that the Tempo in question was given to the driver Milap and the said Milap without the knowledge and consent of the owner gave it to his brother Pooran Singh Thakur, hence he was not liable for the said unauthorised act. The quantum of compensation was also seriously disputed before the Tribunal.
6. The stand of the driver before the Tribunal was that he was driving the Tempo on the fateful day. He had also pleaded that he had intimated the owner that his brother Milap would not be available to drive the Tempo on that day. He has also controverted the claim put forth by the claimants and prayed for its rejection.
7. The Tribunal framed as many as eight issues and came to hold that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo. The owner was responsible for the act of Pooran Singh; the deceased was engaged in tuition and was earning Rs. 1,100 per month; and the grant of compensation of Rs. 70,000 would be adequate; and that the claimants were entitled to Rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses. Being of this view, the Tribunal had held that the non-applicants are jointly and severally liable and directed that Rs. 75,000 shall be paid towards compensation with an interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of the claim application, i.e., 24.8.1993.
8. As has been indicated in the beginning, Mr. H.B. Agrawal has urged with vehemence that the determination of quantum by the Tribunal is excessive and unreasonable. He has assiduously contended that the Tribunal has not taken recourse to the multiplier method and has arbitrarily fixed the amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant has built up his argument by contending that if the deceased had been a boy, the amount of compensation would have been justified. But as the same is not the case at hand, the award passed by the Tribunal becomes susceptible. All these contentions are in the realm of challenge to the quantum.
9. To appreciate the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, we have bestowed our anxious consideration and perused the award of the Tribunal. True it is, the Tribunal has not adopted/ applied the multiplier method. The Tribunal has observed that grant of Rs. 70,000 towards compensation would be just compensation. The Tribunal should have followed the principles laid down in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for determination of compensation. But, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the duty of the Tribunal or for that matter this court is to see that just and proper compensation is awarded. It is the duty of the adjudicating authority to put himself in the situation of the claimants and decide the lis/controversy. Determination of quantum is an essential part of this duty. There cannot be real compensation for the loss caused to the claimants for the death of a near and dear one but the loss has to be quantified as per the parameters of law. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that Mahamaya was aged about 17 years and engaged in private tuition and was earning Rs. 1,100 per month. He has also recorded a finding that she was a meritorious student. Considering her age, the earning capacity at the time of accident and the future prospects, we are of the considered view that the determination by the Tribunal pertaining to quantum cannot be found fault with, although he has not followed the well-trodden path of applying the multiplier method. Mr. Agrawal has laboured hard to impress upon us that a girl would have not been in a position to support the parents for long because marriage is an inevitable eventuality in her life and thereafter her contribution to the parents would have been totally insignificant. The aforesaid argument has its novelty but in effect is devoid of substance. It is to be kept in mind that there can be no discrimination on the ground of gender. It is the income and the capability to earn that form the base of quantification of compensation. It is also to be borne in mind that a woman is equal to man in all aspects. The Almighty has endowed her with immense patience, enormous calmness and Himalayan endurance. The pages of history are replete with courage shown by women. In the present time women compete with men in all spheres and become successful. In this context, we may profitably state what the father of nation had to say on women:
Woman is the companion of man, gifted with equal mental capacities. She has the right to participate in the minutest details in the activities of man, and she has an equal right of freedom and liberty with him.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the ambitious attempt by Mr. Agrawal to make a distinction between a boy and girl against the backdrop of fateful accident is totally devoid of substance. Mr. Agrawal has also contended that grant of funeral expenses in a sum of Rs. 5,000 is excessive and contrary to the Schedule which has been brought in the statute book by way of amendment in the year 1994. The present case has its own peculiarity. We are conscious that the Tribunal should have awarded Rs. 2,000 on this score but the total amount granted by the Tribunal comes to Rs. 75,000 and the said sum is in no way excessive. As we do not find the awarded sum to be excessive or exorbitant, we are not persuaded to accept the contention of Mr. Agrawal to reduce the amount granted towards funeral expenses.
11. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.