Judgment:
A. Pasayat, J.
1. A boy aged seven years sustained fatal injuries on 22-1-1987 and died. His parents lodged a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (in short, the 'Tribunal'). According to them, the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent operation of the road roller belonging to the Executive Engineer, National High Way and Project, Cuttack Division. The claim was for Rs. 50,000/-. In fact two applications were filed-one Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the 'Act') and the other Under Section 92-A of the said Act. Both the applications were tagged up and were disposed of by a common order. The Tribunal quantified the compensation at Rs. 15,000/-. The quantification is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeeal.
2. According to Mr, R.B. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the quantification is patently on the lower side considering the age of the deceased and his parents. Mr. S. P. Mohapatra, learned counsel for State, however, supported the award.
3. There are some aspects of human life which are susceptible of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is Ike beauty of sunrise or the splendour of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measure. The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non-earning .person.* The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, bocomes stiffer. but that does not prevent recovery of deceased's capacity to earn in future was shut out. In that sense the prospective loss can be taken into account. The figure of Compensation involves a great degree of guess work. While considering the case of loss of dependency, of a child aged about 3 years, the apex Court in the case of G.K. Subramonia Iyer and Ors. v. T. Kunhi Kuttan Nair and Ors. : 1970 ACJ 110. held that how the deceased would have turned out in life later is at best a guess; but there was a reasonable probability of his becoming successful man in life as he was a bright boy in the school and his parents could have afforded a good education. The Court considered that the deceased probably would not have been able to make any financial contribution to the welfare of the family till he was 21 years of age. Considering all these aspects Rs. 5,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal was upheld.
4. While considering the case of awarding damages in a case where the deceased is a child the relevant factor would be the age of the parents. It is accepted that the parents in the instant case were in their thirties at the time of accident. The baffling question relating to determination of compensation in the case of death of a child has received attention of many Courts. In Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. C. Ramanaiah ; 1988 ACJ 223 (AP); and Dr. M. K. James and Anr. v. George Joseph and Ors. ;1989 ACJ 31 (Karnataka) elaborate analysis has been made of various relevant aspects. The Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka High Courts in the aforesaid two cases held that in the case of children above five years and below ten years, it will not be possible to ascertain a suitable multiple because of the fairly higher mortality rates in that period. But it is permissible to arrive at conventional amounts, which may range up to Rs. 16,000/- for accidents in the late seventies.
5. Undisputedly the accident in the case at hand took piece in January, 1987. Keeping that in mind, I feel interest of justice would would be best served, if a compensation of Rs. 25,000 is awarded to the parents. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim till payment. The Tribunal also directed that in case of non-payment within three months, the interest rate would be 12% per annum. As has been observed by this Court in The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Buli Dei and Ors. : 74(1992) CLT 141, stipulation of a default clause is not permissible, But grant of interest is discretionary. Therefore, I direct that the rate of interest would be 9% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment. Payment already made shall be adjusted and the balance shall be paid to the claimants expeditiously.
The miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.