JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal for enhancement by claimants has been preferred against the Award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur on 12th May, 1992 awarding a sum of Rs. 72,000/- to the claimants. 2. The accident took place on 22nd February, 1986 at about 11.00 a.m. Deceased Swarooplal alias Ramswaroop (16 years) was moving on a cycle when the Jeep RJV 5813 hit him. Ramswaroop fell down having sustained injuries. He was shifted to hospital but he died in the early morning on the next day. In the claim application it was averred that the accident occurred because of driving the Jeep rashly and negligently by Mohd. Iliyas and that Ramswaroop was in a position to earn Rs. 2,000/- after about 4 years. Rs. 3,14,800/- were claimed as compensation. In the reply, the Insurance Company took certain legal objections pleading that there was contributory negligence of the deceased. The owner and the driver did not file reply. The Tribunal framed 5 issues. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal held under Issue No. 1 that the cause of accident was the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep. Under Issue No. 3, the Tribunal held that Rs. 72,000/- was the just compensation. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 4. The contention of Mr. Mathur, is that the Tribunal has not made proper estimate of the loss of dependency and has adopted lower, multiplier. Relying on the cases of Hazi Zenullah Khan v. Nagar Mahapalika, 1984 ACC 428 (SC) V. Nagarmal Misra v. Lalchand (1996 (2) JT (SC) 338). Mr. Mathur contends that atleast a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- should be awarded. 5. Mr. Rawat on the other hand supports the judgment of the Tribunal. 6. Now it is no more in dispute that the accident had. occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Deceased Ramswaroop was about 17 years of age at the time of accident. He was preparing for High School examination as a private candidate. Though it was claimed in the application that Ramswaroop used to earn Rs. 400/- per month by doing private typing work but the Tribunal found that there was no evidence on record to prove this fact. Deceased Ramswaroop was about 17 years of age at the time of accident. He was preparing for High School examination as a private candidate. Though it was claimed in the application that Ramswaroop used to earn Rs. 400/- per month by doing private typing work but the Tribunal found that there was no evidence on record to prove this fact. There cannot be found any fault in this finding as the claimants had not produced any person who could say that he gave job work to Ramswaroop at any time. 7. Looking to the age of the deceased and the fact that he was preparing for High School Examination also it cannot be believed that he was in a position to earn some amount during those days. 8. The claimants have come with the case that Ramswaroop could be in a position to earn after 4 years when he passed Graduation and at that time he could earn 1,000/- per month. There cannot be any hitch in accepting this case of the claimants that on attaining the age of 21 years the deceased could earn Rs. 1,000/- per month. Since father of the deceased is a Stenographer, it is natural that he could prepare his son for doing typing job in the coming 4 years. It is also relevant to state that the deceased had opted for both typing English and Hindi in his High School Examination. On this evidence, it has to be found that the deceased could be in a position to earn Rs. 1,000/- per month after 4 years i.e. when he attained the age of 21 years. At this age, the appropriate multiplier which could be adopted is of 15. 9. Accepting that the deceased might have spent l/3rd of his income on himself, the pecuniary loss of the family comes to Rs. 650/- per month i.e. Rs. 7,800/- per annum. Multiplying this amount by 15, the loss of dependency works out to be Rs. 1,17,000/-. In my opinion, claimants are entitled to this sum. 10. As regards the cases relied on by learned Counsel for the appellants,it may be stated that in the case of Hazi Zenullah Khan (supra) there were two important facts. Even the grand father of the deceased, who was 19 years of age, was alive on the date of accident and as such there was longevity in the family. 10. As regards the cases relied on by learned Counsel for the appellants,it may be stated that in the case of Hazi Zenullah Khan (supra) there were two important facts. Even the grand father of the deceased, who was 19 years of age, was alive on the date of accident and as such there was longevity in the family. Secondly, the deceased was B.Sc. First Year student with bright career. There were the two reasons that the Honble Supreme Court observed that the amount asked for was a meagre sum. Similarly, in the case of Nagarmal Misra (supra), there was evidence to this effect that the deceased was good at studies and was with a bright future. In the instant case, there is no material on record to the effect that deceased Ramswaroop was good at studies. It appears that he was a drop out and was preparing for High School as a private candidate. In these circumstances, both the cases relied on by Mr. Mathur do not help the appellants. 11. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. The award is modified. The claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,17,000/- from the respondents with interest @ 12% as directed by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount and the interest thereon shall be paid to Munni Devi, mother of the deceased by A/c Payee Cheque only, by the Insurance Company.Appeal allowed. *******