Judgment:
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. Claimants have filed this appeal against the Claims Tribunal's award dated 12.9.1984 whereby an amount of Rs. 22,000/- has been awarded to the claimant-appellants for the vehicular death of their son, a young boy aged 16/17 years, student of 10th Class in D.A.V. High School, Gurgaon.
2. Succinctly fact of the case are that claimants Smt. Shanti Devi and Surya Mani are parents and remaining claimants arc brothers and sisters of deceased Naresh Mani, who died in the vehicular accident dated 28.10.1983. Claimants pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased was coming back to his house on bicycle. Near Sainik Rest House at T point for taking a turn the deceased went towards his right side. At that point of time, the offending bus No. HRU-2505 of Haryana Roadways owned by respondent No. 3 and driven by respondent No. 1-Brij Mohan came from the side of Gurudawara and rammed into the cyclist. The deceased fell down and was crushed under its wheels. The claimants averred that the deceased was a promising lad enjoying an excellent health with bright future prospects and had the earning capacity of Rs. 600/- per month at the time of his death. Due to his abrupt and sudden death, claimants have suffered a huge pecuniary loss. They claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.
3. Respondent No. 1 denied that at that time he was driving the bus rashly and negligently. Respondent No. 2 also averred that the bus was being driven at a low speed in cautious manner; the deceased lost balance and struck against the right rear wheel of the bus.
4. On issues being framed, parties adduced their evidence. The learned tribunal after scanning the evidence minutely decided issue No. 1 in favour of the Claimants and held that respondent No. 1 driver was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently and thus, he was responsible for this accident. While deciding issue No. 2, the learned tribunal admitted that the deceased was aged 17 years, a student of Xth class; he was a promising child was enjoying good health, but relying on Hazari Lal v. Dharam Pal Singh, (1982)84 P.L.R. 32, the learned tribunal awarded only Rs. 22,000/- as compensation. Earlier Rs. 15,000/- were awarded on account of 'no fault liability.' Thus, deducting this amount, claimants were held entitled to recover Rs. 7000/- more as compensation.
6. The appellants' learned counsel relying on R. Ayyavu and Anr. v. Gopinathan Nair and Anr., 1991 ACJ 718 (Ker.), Raghbir Singh v. Makholi Ram and Ors., 1992 A.C.J. 966 (Delhi) and Gurdial Chand Sethi and Ors. v. Ram Sarup and Ors., (1994-1)106 P.L.R. 668 contended that even the learned tribunal has held that the deceased was aged 17 years, was a student of 10th class and was enjoying good health, under these circumstances, the learned Tribunal should have awarded at least 40,000/- as compensation, which was claimed by the claimants in 1984 when the claim petition was filed. As the court fee was to be paid beyond the claim of Rs. 40,000/- the claimants were constrained to claim only Rs. 40,000/- and even that was not granted.
6. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it is obvious that the pain and suffering undergone by the child, loss of expectation of his life and pecuniary loss suffered by him were not considered by the learned tribunal. Thus, the parents have been denied the happiness and the pecuniary advantage that they would have got. If their son Naresh Mani would have survived, he would have served them in old age and would have maintained them as well. Compensation should neither be a windfall nor it should be negligible, it should always be just and adequate. While awarding compensation, the social status of parties, their life style, and future prospects should always be borne in mind. By this vehicular death of their son, parent-claimants' lamp of future prospects was extinguished abruptly. Any amount of compensation can't fill up the void created thereby, but if some reasonable amount is awarded that can render some financial assistance to them in their this hour of vortex/despair.
7. Taking all these facts into consideration, in my considered view, the learned I tribunal should have awarded Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to the claimants.
8. The learned tribunal has also awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realisation. The Apex Court has now settled the legal position in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Ors., (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 1 (S.C.), according to which, claimants are entitled to get interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed: the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- minus Rs. 15,000/- = 25,000/-) and it is also ordered that the respondents shall pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition, i.e. 28.1.1984, with cost which is quantified at Rs. 500/-.