Mian Jalal-ud-Din, C.J:— This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.8.1977 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) awarding Rs. 10,000/- to the appellants as compensation for the death of their child aged 11/12 years who was run over by the vehicle owned by respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 1 on 1.11.1973 The Tribunal has held that respondent No. 1 who drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and thus caused the death of the boy was primarily and respondent No. 2 and 4 were vicariously responsible to pay compensation to the appellants. The Tribunal directed that responsibility of payment of compensation is to be discharged wholly by respondent No. 4, the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Srinagar Branch. The present appeal by the claimants is for enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Appellant No. 1 is the father and appellant No. 2 is the mother of the deceased boy who was reading in the 5th primary class in the Burn Hall High School, Srinagar. It is found that on 1.11.1973 the boy while going home after school hours was killed by the bus owned by respondent No. 2 which was driven by respondent No. 1. A claim petition for the grant of compensation to the tune of one lac and fifty thousands was filed before the Tribunal. The claim was contested by the respondents on several grounds.

3. The Tribunal raised the following issues:

(1) Whether the death of Mohammad Salim deceased was caused due to the accident by bus No. 160-JKB owned by the university of the Kashmir on 1st of November, 1973, at about 4 a.m near Khuna Khan? O.P Petitioners.

(2) Whether the above accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No. 1 who was driving bus No. 160-JKB belonging to non-applicant No. 2 at the time of accident? O.P.P

(3) In case issues Nos. 1 and 2 are proved what is the quantum of compensation that the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? O.P.P

(4) Relief.

4. The Tribunal found that the boy was knocked down by the aforementioned bus and as a result thereof he died on the spot. Respondent No. 1 drove the bus rashly and negligently. The appellants were entitled to claim compensation for the fatal accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the award to the date of payment. The respondents have not filed appeal against the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issues Nos. 1 and 2 are final between the parties as they have not been challenged before us.

5. The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is as regards the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, the appellants, whether the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable and adequate? The material available on the record is that the boy (Mohammad Salim) was the only son of his parents. He was reading in the 5th Primary Class in the Burn Hall High School and was active, quite healthy and promising. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has not done justice to the appellants in awarding compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. According to him the career of the boy was brilliant and his father was taking keen interest in his studies. If he had survived he would have become a doctor as he had aptitude for the medical profession. It is urged that taking the life span at 60 years he would have, if lived, earned more than rupees two lacs in his life time. Even if he had not become a doctor, still he would have got employment somewhere and thus could have earned at least Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- per month from the age of 25. Therefore, taking into consideration the likely pecuniary benefits that would have accrued to the parents appellants, during the life time of the boy, the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal was wholly inadequate and insignificant.

6. This argument is controverted by the respondents by submitting that there is no data available to determine compensation in the present case. The argument of the appellant is based on surmises and belongs to the realm of mere conjectures and has no real basis. Compensation allowed by the Tribunal was more than sufficient having regard to the circumstances of the case.

7. We have given our best consideration to the case at hand. It is a fact that the deceased was the only son of his parents. He was studying in the 5th Class in an institution which has a good academic reputation. According to the teacher who appeared as a witness in the case the boy was quite active and healthy. His father stated that Mohd. Salim, his son was aged about 12/13 years and was studying in the Burn Hall School, Srinagar, in the??? Primary class. His monthly expenditure on the boy was Rs. 125/- to Rs. 150/-. He has four issues, three daughters and one son (the deceased). His plan was to make the deceased a doctor. The aptitude of the boy was also towards the medical profession. Because of the death of the boy his health and that of his wife has been adversely affected and has suffered deterioration. They are now under the treatment of doctors. He has claimed Rs. 1.5 lac as compensation Page: 518for himself and for the mother.

8. Several factors are to be kept in mind while awarding compensation in the case of death caused by accident. The court has to consider and balance the loss to the claimants of any future pecuniary benefits that would have accrued to them had not the death by accident taken place. In other words how much pecuniary loss could be caused to the claimants and how much pecuniary benefit would accrue to them. But these are matters that cannot be ascertained accurately and with precision. There must be some data on which the conclusion can be based. There are, however, cases where it is not possible to have any data so that it would be pressed into service in order to ascertain the pecuniary benefit or loss. In some cases there are matters, as observed by the Supreme Court, which belong to the realm of conjecture. See Sheikupura Transport Co.'s case 1971 A.C.J 206. Especially the claim advanced in the case of a young boy presents some imponderables. What education would the parents be able to give to the child, how far the child could succeed, what trade or profession would have been taken by the boy if he had survived, and if all went well, what would be his earning capacity, are matters that are relevant to be considered? But even then for parents their affection and love for the boy cannot be measured in terms of money. As observed by Viscount Simon L.C in Benham v. Gambling (1941) A.C 157, human life is regarded as precious. It is precious as much for the joy it brings as for the sufferings it inflicts. The difficulty of measuring its worth in terms of money, is, indeed, real. There are some aspects of human life which are susceptible of monetary measurement but the totality of human life, is, like the beauty of sun rise or the splendour of the stars, beyond the reach of the monetary tape measure.

9. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to us some decisions of some High Courts and the Supreme Court in order to show as to how much compensation was allowed in the case of boys who had died as a result of accident.

10. In C.K Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhi Kuttan Nair 1970 A.C.J 110, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- but on appeal it was enhanced to Rs. 6,000/-. It was a case where a boy of 8 years was hit by a bus and as a result of the injuries sustained by him he had died.

11. In Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Padma 1973 A.C.J 454, compensation was enhanced from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-

12. In Sanjiva Shetty v. Anantha 1976 A.C.J 261, a division bench of that court up-held the award of the Tribunal granting Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the claimants of the boy who had suffered death in the accident.

13. Having regard to all what has been stated above it is manifest that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for assessing compensation in such cases and the question of fixing the compensation becomes problematic in cases where the court has only to guess as regards the future potentialities of the deceased. Each case must, therefore, be decided on its own merits and peculiarities. Sometimes we have to depend on conjectures as has been observed in Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transport Insurance Co.† 1971 A.C.J 206, where it has been held that the pecuniary loss to the aggrieved party would depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately but must necessarily be an estimate or even partly a conjecture. In the present case, as observed above, the deceased was the only son of his parents and was receiving education in a standard school of the city of Srinagar. He was very active, quite healthy and had a promising career. Even assuming that he would not have become a doctor if he Page: 519had survived, at least he would have become an earning member of the family and would have been a source of earning and also a source of comfort to his parents in their old age. Even if he had become an ordinary employee or a craftsman or an artisan, he would have been in a position to earn income not less than Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- per month. Having regard to the span of life of the family to which the deceased belonged (vide the statement of the father of the deceased) the boy would have survived at least till the age of 60 years. Even if he would have got employment at the age of 25 years, he would have been able to earn an income of not less than Rs. 3,000/- per year (taking the monthly income which the boy would have got at Rs. 250/- per month). He would have in this way earned not less than rupees one lac and half. Therefore, having regard to the totality of the circumstances and other relevant factors, I think that Rs. 25,000/- is the just and fair compensation that should be allowed to the claimants in the present case. While assessing the compensation regard is had to the prevailing price structure, the rise in the price index and the depreciation that the rupee has suffered in its value during the last one decade.

14. The result is that the appeal is allowed to the extent that compensation is enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand). The appellants shall also be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim till the date of the payment. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.