S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The challenge in appeal here is to the Award of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the parents of Asha Prasad, a six years old girl who was killed when she was run over by the tractor CTC-8242 while standing on the road-side. This happened on September 30, 1979 at about II A.M. near Rajindra Nagar Ludhiana. The finding of the Tribunal being that the tractor-driver was wholly to blame for the accident.
2. The finding of negligence recorded against the tractor-driver warrants no interference in appeal. The case of the claimants is founded upon the testimony of AW 2 M.M. Sharma, who deposed to being an eye-witness to the occurrence and the corroboration provided to it by the first information report Exhibit A/1 recorded on his statement. According to the testimony of this witness the accident occurred entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-driver, in fact, road when in that, the deceased was merely standing by the side of the road when she was run over by the tractor and further that the tractor stopped about 700 or 800 yards from the place of accident and that too when he and other persons present there raised an alarm. It was further his testimony that the police arrived there within about 20 minutes of the accident and it was then his statement was recorded by them. In other words, the first information report was a contemporaneous account of the occurrence. The tractor driver on his part did not come into the witness box to depose to his version of the accident. In this situation, no exception can be taken to the Tribunal returning a finding of negligence against the tractor-driver.
The main controversy now is with regard to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. In considering this matter, reference must, in the first instance, be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.K. Subramania lyer and Ors. v. T. Kunhi Kuttan Nair and Ors. 1970 ACJ 110, where in a case pertaining to an eight-years old boy killed in a motor accident it was observed 'as a general rule parents are entitled to recover the present cash value of the prospective service of the deceased minor child. In addition they may receive compensation for loss of the pecuniary benefits reasonably to be expected after the child attains majority'. The Court went on to add 'there can be no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of the human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precises the mathematical calculations but the amount recoverable depends on the particular facts and circumstance of each case.'
3. Mr. L.M. Suri, counsel for the truck-owner sought to lay great stress upon the fact that the deceased here was young girl implying thereby that on this account little or no financial loss to her parents can be said to have accured to them. This contention cannot indeed be accepted. It is a fallacy to assume that merely because the deceased happens to be a minor girl, her parents would not be entitled to compensation. Courts cannot in this behalf loss sight of the fact that girls in ever increasing numbers are joining professions and taking up employment and that too in almost all fields. In the case of Asha Prasad, considering the position and status of her parents, her father being a Commissioner of Income Tax, there can be no manner of doubt that she lived, she would have been provided the best possible education and this in turn would have made available to her the opportunity of a career in one of the leading professions of services. In this situation if her parents were over to be in need, it is very unlikely that she would not have extended financial support to them. These are some of the important features of the case which make it out as a special case of its own type.
4. Counsel for the appellant then referred to a number of cases relating to awards of compensation to parents concerning their minor children killed in road accidents, within a view to show that the amounts awarded were invariably much lower than in the present case. He referred in this behalf to Sitaram and Ors. v. The Nagar Palika Parishad, Mandsaur and Ors. 1982 ACJ 63, wherein respect of a ten-years old girl, the amount awarded was only Rs. 2000/-. In Prathviraj v. Kalvir Singh and Ors. 1983 ACJ 123, compensation awarded in respect of a three-and-half years old girl was only Rs. 5,000/-. Reference was also made to Syed Patel v. N.J. Doddabasappa and Ors. 1982 ACJ 1, where compensation awarded in the case of the death of a six-years old girl was only Rs. 6,000/- and in Phuggi Lal and Anr. v. J.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 1981 ACJ 296, where it was Rs. 7,200/- again in respect of a six-years old girl. Finally, mention was made of Malan Hanumant Mehar and Anr. v. Balkrishan Vishnu and Anr. 1985 ACJ 141, where Rs. 15,000 was awarded as compensation for a twelve-years old girl killed in a motor accident.
As mentioned earlier, each case has to be considered on its own facts. It is also well-settled that courts do not lightly interfere with the compensation awarded in such case unless in it is shown that there was some manifest or glaring error in the quantum of compensation awarded. This is clearly not the case here. An apt and relevant precedent to be cited here is the recent judgment of this Court in FAO No. 331 of 1981 Mohinder Singh v. Punjab State decided on April 30,1985. This case pertained to the death of a 17 years old girl who was sty ding in the 10th class in school at the time of her death. The parents of this girl owned a dhaaba in Amritsar. The compensation awarded to them was Rs. 20,000/-. In a case like the present however where the father of the deceased thus had all the opportunity of getting the best possible education, an award of Rs. 30,000/-as compensation to her parents, cannot justify interference in appeal.
5. This appeal is accordingly hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.