- (1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. By preferring this appeal the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company contended before this Court although the award has been given following the principle laid down in the case of Manju Devi & Anr. v. Musafir Paswan & Anr. , 2005 ACJ 99, but the income has been shown by the mother of the deceased as Rs. 25/- per day. The deceased is a boy of 10 years and according to the mother the deceased was earning such sum from a tea shop. Therefore, applicability of multiplier as made by the Court below is wrongful.
(2.) WE are of the view that since the boy is minor he is prevented from doing work under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, applicable therein. Therefore, the income, if any, by way of his service is an illegal income as it is barred by law and cannot be taken into account as a valid basis of income to establish the income. Therefore, the presumption of this Court is that the boy of 10 years being a non-earning member, multiplier of 15 will be applicable as per Schedule II under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 i. e. Rs. 15,000 per annum. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, no order is passed as to costs. The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000 will be remitted in favour of the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible to adjust in the claim of the claimants. V. C. Misra, J.- I agree. Appeal dismissed. .;