SMT. MEENA PAWAIA & ORS.versusASHRAF ALI & ORS.

                           [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1009                            1009


                  SMT. MEENA PAWAIA & ORS.                                  A
                                   v.
                        ASHRAF ALI & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 6724 of 2021)
                        NOVEMBER 18, 2021                                   B
          [M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.168 – Just compensation – Fatal
accident – Victim-deceased aged 21-22 years at the time of accident
and Third year student in civil engineering – When the deceased
                                                                            C
died at the young age 21-22 years and was not earning at the time
of death/accident, the income for the purpose of determining the
future economic loss is always done on the basis of guesswork
considering many circumstances namely the educational
qualification and background of the family, etc. – Deceased was
having a bright future studying in the Third year of civil engineering,     D
his income ought to have been considered at least Rs.10,000/- per
month, more particularly considering the fact that the labourers/
skilled labourers were getting Rs.5,000/- per month even under the
Minimum Wages Act in the year 2012 – Once such an amount is
arrived at he shall be entitled to the addition over the future prospect/
                                                                            E
future rise in income – It cannot be disputed that the rise in cost of
living would also affect such a person – Thus, even in case of a
deceased who was not serving at the time of death and had no
income at the time of death, their legal heirs shall also be entitled to
future prospects by adding future rise in income.
                                                                            F
      Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Multiplier – Deceased at the time
of accident was aged between 21-22 years – Therefore, the multiplier
has to be adopted/applied considering the age of the deceased and
not the age of the parents thus, multiplier 18 would apply.
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Entitlement of claimants to Just
Compensation – The claimants are entitled to just compensation –            G
Merely because in the execution proceedings they might have
accepted the amount as awarded by the High Court, may be as full
and final settlement, it shall not take away the right of the claimants
to claim just compensation and shall not preclude them from claiming
                                                                            H
                                 1009
1010            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 10 S.C.R.


 A     the enhanced amount of compensation which they as such are held
       to be entitled to – As such, the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent
       Act and the claimants are entitled to just compensation. As such,
       the Union of India ought not to have taken such a plea/defence.
             Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
 B           HELD: 1. The deceased at the time of accident was aged
       21-22 years and that he was a 3rd year student in civil engineering.
       The Tribunal assessed the income of deceased at Rs.15,000/-
       per month for the purpose of awarding compensation under the
       head of future economic loss. However, by the impugned
 C     judgment, the High Court reduced the compensation and
       determined the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month.
       Awarding the future economic loss to the claimants considering
       the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- is not sustainable at all.
       Even the labourers/skilled labourers were getting Rs.5,000/- per
       month under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2012. As the
 D     deceased was studying in the 3rd/4th semester of civil engineering,
       he cannot be considered worse than the labourers/skilled
       labourers. Therefore looking to the educational qualification and
       the family background, the deceased was having a bright future
       studying in the 3rd year of civil engineering, the income of the
 E     deceased at least ought to have been considered at least
       Rs.10,000/- per month, more particularly considering the fact that
       the labourers/skilled labourers were getting Rs.5,000/- per month
       even under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2012.
       [Para 8][1014-G-H; 1015-A-B, D-E]

 F            2. In case of a deceased, who was not earning and/or not
       doing any job and/or self employed at the time of accident/death,
       his income is to be determined on the guesswork looking to the
       circumstances narrated. Once such an amount is arrived at he
       shall be entitled to the addition over the future prospect/future
       rise in income. It cannot be disputed that the rise in cost of living
 G     would also affect such a person. As observed by this court in the
       case of Pranay Sethi, the determination of income while computing
       compensation has to include future prospects so that the method
       will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as
       postulated under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In case
 H     of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of
    SMT. MEENA PAWAIA & ORS. v. ASHRAF ALI & ORS.                      1011


annual increment and/or in case of a deceased who was on a fixed       A
salary and /or self employed would only get the benefit of future
prospects and the legal representatives of the deceased who was
not serving at the relevant time as he died at a young age and
was studying, could not be entitled to the benefit of the future
prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would
                                                                       B
be inapposite. Because the price rise does affect them also and
there is always an incessant effort to enhance one’s income for
sustenance. It is not expected that the deceased who was not
serving at all, his income is likely to remain static and his income
would remain stagnant. As observed in Pranay Sethi to remain
stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude      C
which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change
with the time. Even in case of a deceased who was not serving at
the time of death and had no income at the time of death, their
legal heirs shall also be entitled to future prospects by adding
future rise in income as held by this court in the case of Pranay
                                                                       D
Sethi i.e. addition of 40% of the income determined on guesswork
considering the educational qualification, family background etc.,
where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. [Para 11]
[1019-C-H; 1020-A-B]
       3. The deceased at the time of accident was aged between
21-22 years. Therefore, the multiplier has to be adopted/applied       E
considering the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents
thus, multiplier 18 would apply. Now so far as the submission on
behalf of the Union of India that as in the execution proceedings
the claimants accepted the amount due and payable under the
impugned judgment and order and accepted the same as full and          F
final settlement, thereafter the claimants ought not to have
preferred appeal for enhancement of the compensation is
concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. The claimants are
entitled to just compensation. Merely because in the execution
proceedings they might have accepted the amount as awarded
by the High Court, may be as full and final settlement, it shall not   G
take away the right of the claimants to claim just compensation
and shall not preclude them from claiming the enhanced amount
of compensation which they as such are held to be entitled to. As

                                                                       H
1012            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 10 S.C.R.


 A     such, the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent Act and the claimants
       are entitled to just compensation. As such, the Union of
       India ought not to have taken such a plea/defence. [Paras 12,
       13][1020-B-G]
             National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi
 B           and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 –
             relied on.
                                Case Law Reference
       [2017] 13 SCR 100                 relied on                 Para 10

 C           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.6724
       of 2021.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2020 of the High Court
       of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in MA No.1319 of 2016.
             Yadunandan Bansal, Ravi Panwar, Advs. for the Appellants.
 D            Ms. Madhavi Divan ASG, Ms. Seema Bengani, Adit Khorana,
       Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Ms. Adita
       Mishra, Kishore Mishra, Amrish Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              M. R. SHAH, J.
 E
              1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
       and order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
       Bench at Gwalior in MA No. 1319 of 2016, by which the High Court has
       partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the Union of India/Railways
       and has reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.12,85,000/-
 F     (awarded by the claims tribunal) to Rs.6,10,000/-, the original claimants
       have preferred the present appeal.
              2. In an accident which occurred on 12.09.2012, the son of the
       original claimants, Mr. Prashant died. The deceased at the time of accident
       was a bachelor, aged 21 years and was studying in 3rd year of B.E. The
 G     original claimants – mother, father, brother and sister of the deceased
       filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
       (MACT), being MACT case No.1/2013 claiming Rs.25 lakhs as
       compensation on different heads. It was the case on behalf of the
       original claimants that the deceased at the relevant time was earning
       Rs.8,000/- per month as he was engaged in tuition of other students. On
 H
    SMT. MEENA PAWAIA & ORS. v. ASHRAF ALI & ORS.                             1013
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal held that the deceased          A
died due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the truck
involved in the accident. The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly
income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month, disbelieving the case
on behalf of the claimants that he was getting Rs.25,000/- as salary
from one Nectal Construction Company. Learned Tribunal also
                                                                              B
disbelieved the fact about earning of Rs.8,000/- by the deceased per
month from private tuition. However considering the young age and the
educational qualification, the learned Tribunal keeping in mind the nature
of work to be done by him in future and his future prospect, considered
the future loss of income at Rs.15,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal
deducted ½ over his own personal expenses as he was a bachelor.               C
However, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier on the basis of the
age of the parents of the deceased and consequently applied the 14
multiplier and awarded Rs.12,60,000/- towards future loss of income.
The learned Tribunal also awarded Rs.25,000/- under other head, namely
on the head of the last rites of the deceased. Learned Tribunal in all
                                                                              D
awarded Rs.12,85,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum.
       3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 16.09.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, both, the original
claimants as well as Union of India preferred separate appeals before
the High Court. Union of India preferred MA No. 1276 of 2016 and
original claimants preferred MA No.1319 of 2016. By the impugned              E
judgment and order, the High Court has reduced the amount of
compensation from Rs.12,85,000/- to Rs.6,10,000/- assessing the income
of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month instead of Rs.15,000/- per month
as determined and awarded by the learned Tribunal. The High Court
corrected the error committed by the learned Tribunal and applied the         F
multiplier considering the age of the deceased and applied the multiplier
of 18 and has awarded Rs.5,40,000/- under the head of future loss of
income. Thereafter it has further awarded Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate;
Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- as loss of love and
affection. The High Court has awarded a total sum of Rs.6,10,000/-
instead of Rs.12,85,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal.                 G
       4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court reducing the amount of compensation
from Rs.12,85,000/- to Rs.6,10,000/-, determining the future loss of income
at Rs.5,000/- per month, original claimants have preferred the present
appeal.                                                                       H
1014             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 10 S.C.R.


 A            5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants - original
       claimants has vehemently submitted that looking to the educational
       qualification and the bright future, the High Court has committed a grave
       error in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month
       only.
 B           5.1 It is submitted that the deceased at the time of accident was
       aged 21-22 years and was studying in B.E. and considering the fact that
       even the labourers were getting Rs.5,000/- per month even under the
       Minimum Wages Act in the year 2012, the High Court ought not to have
       considered the income of deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month.
 C            5.2 It is further submitted that the High Court has not considered
       the future rise in income while awarding the future loss of income.
              6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India is
       not in a position to support the impugned judgment and order passed by
       the High Court awarding the future loss of income considering the income
 D     of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. However, it is submitted that
       as the deceased was not earning anything at the time of accident and as
       the case on behalf of the claimants that he was earning Rs.25,000/- as a
       salary from Nectal Construction Company and that he was earning
       Rs.8,000/- from private tuition has been disbelieved and thereby he was
       not earning at all at the time of death, there shall not be any future rise in
 E     income while determining the future loss of income. It is further submitted
       by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India that in
       the execution proceedings the entire amount as awarded by the High
       Court is paid, the claimants have stated that they accept the same as full
       and final settlements and therefore the present appeal may not be
 F     entertained.
             7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
       respective parties at length.
               8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that deceased at the
       time of accident was aged 21-22 years and that he was a 3rd year student
 G     in civil engineering. Therefore, it can be said that looking to his educational
       qualification he was having a bright future. Learned Tribunal assessed
       the income of deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month for the purpose of
       awarding compensation under the head of future economic loss. However,
       by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has reduced
       the compensation and determined the income of the deceased at
 H
     SMT. MEENA PAWAIA & ORS. v. ASHRAF ALI & ORS.                              1015
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Rs.5,000/- per month. Awarding the future economic loss to the claimants        A
considering the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- is not sustainable
at all. Even the labourers/skilled labourers were getting Rs.5,000/- per
month under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2012. As the deceased
was studying in the 3rd/4th semester of civil engineering, he cannot be
considered worse than the labourers/skilled labourers. Even the counsel
                                                                                B
appearing on behalf of the Union of India has fairly conceded that
assessing the income of deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month for the purpose
of awarding the compensation under the head of future economic loss
can be said to be at lower side and as such is not justifiable. While
awarding the future economical loss, when the deceased died at the
young age 21-22 years and was not earning at the time of death/accident,        C
as per catena of decisions of this court, the income for the purpose of
determining the future economic loss is always done on the basis of
guesswork considering many circumstances namely the educational
qualification and background of the family, etc. Therefore looking to the
educational qualification and the family background and as observed
                                                                                D
herein above, the deceased was having a bright future studying in the 3 rd
year of civil engineering, we are of the opinion that the income of the
deceased at least ought to have been considered at least Rs.10,000/- per
month, more particularly considering the fact that the labourers/skilled
labourers were getting Rs.5,000/- per month even under the Minimum
Wages Act in the year 2012.                                                     E
       9. The next question which is posed for the consideration before
this court is whether anything further is required to be added towards
the future rise in income? It is submitted that on behalf of the Union of
India that as the deceased was not serving and earning at the time of
accident/death nothing further is to be added towards the future prospect/      F
future rise in income. The aforesaid cannot be accepted.
        10. At this stage, the decision of this court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017)
16 SCC 680, on addition of future prospects to determine the multiplicand
is required to be referred to and considered. In the aforesaid decision         G
the Constitution Bench of this court had an occasion to consider in detail
the justification for addition of future prospects. In the aforesaid decision
it is observed and held that while determining the income, an addition of
50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the
                                                                                H
1016             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 10 S.C.R.


 A     age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age
       of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was
       between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual
       salary should be read as actual salary less tax. It is also further held that
       in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition
       of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the
 B
       deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the
       deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
       deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as
       the necessary method of computation. It is also further held that the
       established income means the income minus the tax component. While
 C     holding so in paras 54 to 57, it is observed and held as under:-
             “54. In Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co.
             Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421] the Court has not accepted as a principle
             that a self-employed person remains on a fixed salary throughout
             his life. It has taken note of the rise in the cost of living which
 D           affects everyone without making any distinction between the rich
             and the poor. Emphasis has been laid on the extra efforts made
             by this category of persons to generate additional income. That
             apart, judicial notice has been taken of the fact that the salaries of
             those who are employed in private sectors also with the passage
             of time increase manifold. In Rajesh case [Sarla Verma v. DTC,
 E           (2009) 6 SCC 121], the Court had added 15% in the case where
             the victim is between the age group of 15 to 60 years so as to
             make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. This
             addition has been made in respect of self-employed or engaged
             on fixed wages.
 F           55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just
             compensation” and the same has to be determined on the
             foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on
             acceptable legal standard because such determination can never
             be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is
 G           to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical
             precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual
             case. The conception of “just compensation” has to be viewed
             through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation
             of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of
             the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the
 H
SMT. MEENA PAWAIA & ORS. v. ASHRAF ALI & ORS.                             1017
              [M. R. SHAH, J.]

 compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It           A
 cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal
 is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be
 guided by the expression, that is, “just compensation”. The
 determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on
 record as regards the age and income of the deceased and
                                                                          B
 thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating
 to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma [Sarla
 Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121] and it has been approved
 in Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013)
 9 SCC 65]. The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be
 established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the courts            C
 have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic
 computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well-accepted
 norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to
 be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of
 approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes,
                                                                          D
 that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In
 such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the courts is
 difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court
 for standardisation which in its ambit includes addition of future
 prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future
 prospects are concerned, there has been standardisation keeping          E
 in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We
 approve the principle of “standardisation” so that a specific and
 certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on
 the basis of age.
 56. The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases       F
 of deceased who are self-employed or on a fixed salary. Sarla
 Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121] has carved out
 an exception permitting the claimants to bring materials on record
 to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. It has not, per
 se, allowed any future prospects in respect of the said category.
                                                                          G
 57. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed
 to think when we accept the principle of standardisation, there is
 really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self-
 employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the
 doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any
                                                                          H
1018      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 10 S.C.R.


 A     amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the
       purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The
       determination of income while computing compensation has to
       include future prospects so that the method will come within the
       ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section
       168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent
 B
       job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable
       certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased
       who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of
       future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation
       would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between
 C     the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and
       staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative
       measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other
       but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise
       does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always
       an incessant effort to enhance one’s income for sustenance. The
 D
       purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when
       increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for
       some other change in service conditions, there is always a
       competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to
       get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who
 E     is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his
       charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the
       perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain
       stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude
       which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change
       with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot
 F
       be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income
       unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said
       perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined
       to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards
       the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the
 G     legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who
       had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a
       fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardisation on
       the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to
       remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And,
       therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is
 H
    SMT. MEENA PAWAIA & ORS. v. ASHRAF ALI & ORS.                             1019
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it     A
      would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the
      inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the
      cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society,
      escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude
      to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of
                                                                              B
      the established income of the deceased towards future prospects
      and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25%
      where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would
      be reasonable.”
       11. We see no reason why the aforesaid principle may not be
applied, which apply to the salaried person and/or deceased self employed     C
and/or a fixed salaried deceased, to the deceased who was not serving
and/or was not having any income at the time of accident/death. In case
of a deceased, who was not earning and/or not doing any job and/or self
employed at the time of accident/death, as observed herein above his
income is to be determined on the guesswork looking to the circumstances      D
narrated hereinabove. Once such an amount is arrived at he shall be
entitled to the addition over the future prospect/future rise in income. It
cannot be disputed that the rise in cost of living would also affect such a
person. As observed by this court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra),
the determination of income while computing compensation has to include
future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep      E
of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with
inbuilt grant of annual increment and/or in case of a deceased who was
on a fixed salary and /or self employed would only get the benefit of
future prospects and the legal representatives of the deceased who was        F
not serving at the relevant time as he died at a young age and was
studying, could not be entitled to the benefit of the future prospects for
the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. Because
the price rise does affect them also and there is always an incessant
effort to enhance one’s income for sustenance. It is not expected that
the deceased who was not serving at all, his income is likely to remain       G
static and his income would remain stagnant. As observed in Pranay
Sethi (Supra) to have the perception that he is likely to remain static and
his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of
human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move
and change with the time. Therefore we are of the opinion that even in        H
1020             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 10 S.C.R.


 A     case of a deceased who was not serving at the time of death and had no
       income at the time of death, their legal heirs shall also be entitled to
       future prospects by adding future rise in income as held by this court in
       the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) i.e. addition of 40% of the income
       determined on guesswork considering the educational qualification, family
       background etc., where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.
 B
              12. In light of the above, in the present case, the claimants shall
       be entitled to future economic loss at Rs.14,000/- per month. The
       deceased at the time of accident was aged between 21-22 years.
       Therefore, the multiplier has to be adopted/applied considering the age
       of the deceased and not the age of the parents thus, multiplier 18 would
 C     apply. Therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.15,12,000/-
       towards the future economic loss. Claimants shall also be entitled to
       Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses
       and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Thus, the claimants
       shall be entitled in all a sum of Rs.15,82,000/- with interest thereon at
 D     the rate of 7% per annum from the date of claims petition till realization.
               13. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the Union of India
       that as in the execution proceedings the claimants accepted the amount
       due and payable under the impugned judgment and order and accepted
       the same as full and final settlement, thereafter the claimants ought not
 E     to have preferred appeal for enhancement of the compensation is
       concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. The claimants are entitled
       to just compensation. Merely because in the execution proceedings they
       might have accepted the amount as awarded by the High Court, may be
       as full and final settlement, it shall not take away the right of the claimants
       to claim just compensation and shall not preclude them from claiming
 F     the enhanced amount of compensation which they as such are held to
       be entitled to. As such, the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent Act and
       as observed hereinabove the claimants are entitled to just compensation.
       As such, the Union of India ought not to have taken such a plea/defence.
              14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
 G     present appeal succeeds in part. Impugned judgment and order passed
       by the High Court is modified and it is held that the claimants shall be
       entitled a total sum of Rs.15,82,000/- with interest thereon at the rate
       of 7% from the date of claims petition till the date of realization.
             15. Now the appellants to deposit the balance enhanced amount
 H     of compensation as per the present judgment and order with the learned
     SMT. MEENA PAWAIA & ORS. v. ASHRAF ALI & ORS.                                1021
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today and also deposit the             A
enhanced amount of compensation to be invested by the learned Tribunal
in the name of the parents in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for
a period of 3 years however, the parents shall be entitled to the periodical
interest on the same.
      16. Present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent with           B
token cost which is quantified at Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the original
claimants also to be deposited in the learned Tribunal within a period of
six weeks from today and the same may be paid to the original claimants.

Devika Gujral                                            Appeal partly allowed.   C




                                                                                  D




                                                                                  E




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H