Order This appeal has been preferred by the above-named Insurance Company against the judgment and award passed by the then Ist Addl. Claim Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim case no. 109 of 1990. 2. One Pramod Kumar Pandey, a boy of nine years old and a student of Class-V standard died on 29.3.1990 being dashed by a vehicle bearing Registration no. BPZ-8285, which was insured at the relevant time with the appellant Insurance Company. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus and as such held that the claimants being the parents of the deceased, Pramod Kumar Pandey are entitled to get compensation. While assessing the quantum of compensation, learned court below held that Rs. 1,50,000/- would be the proper compensation on consideration of the fact that the claim of compensation was made under three heads namely; (i) Shock and mental agony, (ii) loss of Company, and (iii) future prospects. Altogether, 2,50,000/- was claimed by the parents but the learned court below held that Rs. 1,50,000/- would be the proper quantum of compensation and hence awarded the said amount alongwith interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the compensation case till realisation. It was further ordered that if the amount is not paid within 31 days from the date of award the interest will be enhanced at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. Interim amount of compensation, which was paid earlier has also been ordered to be deducted from the award of compensation. 3. Mr. P.C. Roy, by referring to various judgments of different High Courts, submitted that the learned Tribunal committed serious error of law in awarding the lumpsum compensation without any basis whatsoever and such amount ought not to have been in the form of windfall or gain to the parents of the deceased boy. He has referred to various judgments in this respect, such as 1994 A.C.J. 805 (Urmila Pandey and ors. vs. Khalil Ahmad and ors.) and 1996 A.C.J., 911 (New India Assurance Co. He has referred to various judgments in this respect, such as 1994 A.C.J. 805 (Urmila Pandey and ors. vs. Khalil Ahmad and ors.) and 1996 A.C.J., 911 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chand Rani and ors.), wherein it was held that the amount of compensation should be assessed on proper and justifiably in the circumstances of the case and no amount should be awarded as a windfall or a gain to the parents or the claimants. 4. Here, in the present case, Rs. 1,50,000/- has bE!en awarded. By referring to a judgment of 1986 A.C.J., 1121 (Hassa Mar and am. vs. Jatti Ram and ors.) of Rajasthan High Court, Mr. Roy submitted that in that case a boy of nine years old died due to motor accident and only Rs. 48.000/- was awarded as compensation. In that case, death was caused in the year 1984 or prior to that and in the present case, death was caused in the year 1990 only. By this time, it can be taken judicial notice of the fact that the price index has been increased much higher and Rs. 48,000/- in that case, if it is considered in the money value of 1990, which would not be less than Rs. 80,000/- and odd. 5. It has been brought in evidence that the deceased was the only male child of the parents - claimants and he was reading in Class-V and he was having rank of first or second position in the School always. Although, such certificate from the School has not been produced but the evidence from the side of the claimants could not be denied by showing any other documents. The parents are coming from lower strata of agriculturist family having income of 40,000/- to 50,000/- per year. It was an agricultural based family but there was definitely much expectation of the parents when their only male child was showing brilliancy in the School examination, such expectancy of the parents cannot be looked down, when they were even coming from village, in sending their male child for education and the same was definitely done with the expectation that he will be highly placed in the society after completion of his education. In that view of the matter, I do not find that the assessment made by the learned Tribunal was without any basis. 6. In the Rajasthan case, Rs. In that view of the matter, I do not find that the assessment made by the learned Tribunal was without any basis. 6. In the Rajasthan case, Rs. 200/- per month was assessed as the benefits to be obtained by the parents from the deceased boy. By taking that analogy, as submitted by Mr. P.C. Roy, after consideration of the circumstances of the case and the present money value at the relevant time of accident, Rs. 500/- may be assessed as benefits to be accrued in further and then Rs. 500/- may be accepted as benefits of dependency and by using multiplier of 18 as maximum one, as is held by the Apex Court in a recent judgment, the amount comes up to Rs. 1,08,000/- towards dependency or expectancy. Then by adding loss of company, pains etc. for more Rs. 17,000/- the compensation comes up to Rs. 1,25,000/- and in my view, the same would be proper and just in the present circumstances of the case. 7. Regarding the enhanced interest of 18 percent, Mr. Roy has referred to a Single Bench judgment of this Court as reported in 1996 ACJ page, 911, wherein the learned Single Judge held in the following manner : "So far as grant of penal interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum in case the compensation amount alongwith 15 percent per annum interest is not paid within two months of the order is concerned, in my opinion, it is beyond the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such the said part of the impugned judgment and award is set aside." 8. In that view of the matter, the submission of Mr. P.C. Roy is that the penal interest of 18 percent should be deleted. But, it appears that before the Single Judge, the decision of the Supreme Court as reported in 1994 A.C.J. page-805 was not brought into the notice wherein such sort of enhancement of interest was held to be justified, if the payments are not made within the specified period. Such enhancement of interest cannot be considered to be a penal interest, if the same is not being calculated from the date of initial filing of the claim case. Such enhancement of interest cannot be considered to be a penal interest, if the same is not being calculated from the date of initial filing of the claim case. The proper procedure for levying enhancement of interest would be that the same interest would be calculated after expiry of the period, which was fixed for payment of compensation with normal interest till realisation. 9. In view of the above position, the appeal is partly allowed by decreasing the amount of compensation to Rs. 1,25,000/- from that of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the interest portion of 12 percent from the date of filing of the case till realisation is maintained. However, if this amount of compensation with interest is not paid within one month from the date of this appellate order then the Insurance Company shall have to pay the enhanced interest of 18 percent per annum from the date of expiry of one month of this appellate order till realisation. 10. Again, it appears that interim award has already been paid from the side of the Insurance Company as is revealed from the impugned judgment, the same should be deducted from the award and the amount which has been Statutorily deposited u/s 173 of the M.V. Act may also be disbursed immediately in favour of the claimants-respondents. Those amounts and their dates of payments to the claimants-respondents shall be construed while calculating interest for paying the balance of compensation to the claimants-respondents. 11. The appeal is thus partly allowed.