S.K.Keshote, J. - (1.) This appeal, under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act, 1988') is directed by the claimants-appellants against the award dated 16.1.1998, of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bayana, District Bharatpur, in Claim Case No. 65 of 1994.
(2.) Under the impugned award, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000 as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants for the death of their son Gouri. The deceased was aged 4 years.
(3.) Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that even where the deceased, minor son of the claimants-appellants, was not the earning member, on his death his notional income is to be taken at Rs. 15,000 per annum and 15 is appropriate multiplier, which ought to have been adopted by the learned Tribunal. But it has not been done and the learned Tribunal has granted a lump sum compensation of Rs. 90,000 in favour of the claimants-appellants, which is not reasonable and justified. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for claimants-appellants, placing reliance on the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan, 2005 ACJ 99 (SC). It is submitted that where the claimants-appellants fail to prove the income of the deceased, it is to be taken at Rs. 15,000 per annum. In that case the deceased was taken a non-earning member of the family. The learned counsel for claimants-appellants submits that the deceased be taken a non-earning member as what their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court took in Manju Devi's case (supra).;