JUDGMENT P.K. DEB, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named claimants-appellants against the judgment and award passed by the then Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Misc. (Judicial) case no. 160 of 1982. 2. The claimants are the parents of the deceased Shyam Sunder Pandey. The accident occurred on 17.4.1982, at about 10.30 a.m. On that date at the relevant time, the boy was returning home from his school on the bicycle. When the deceased reached near Piska More, a bus bearing no. B.H.V. 8174 belonging to the respondent-Opposite party came from the opposite direction and it was being driven in rash and negligent way as a result of which it dashed the cyclist and the deceased was thrown on the road. The cycle was also totally crushed, but the driver of the bus did not stop the vehicle and fled away. The boy Shyam Sunder Pandey received serious injuries. He was removed to R.M.C.H. where he died subsequently. 3. At the relevant time, he was reading in Class IX of Government Zila School, Ranchi. According to the certificate produced, he was a brilliant student and the claimants had bright hopes from him. He was the eldest son of the claimants. The claimants have suffered mental pain, shock and agony and, as such, claim has been preferred for compensation of rupees one lac besides a sum of rupees five hundred as a price of the cycle. 4. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the vehicle and also by the Insurance Company i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. with whom the bus was comprehensively insured at that time admittedly. In the written statement from the ownership side, the accident was denied and there was also denial of rash and negligent driving. Several issues were framed and on the vital issue, it was held on the basis of the evidence adduced by the eye witness A.W. 1 Ramesh Singh that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus in question. From the demeanour of the driver of the bus, it was clear that the accident occurred due to his negligence as he did not stop the bus at the site after dashing the cyclist and fled away with the bus. It was also averred that due to the treatment in the hospital, the claimants had to spent Rs. 1500/-. From the demeanour of the driver of the bus, it was clear that the accident occurred due to his negligence as he did not stop the bus at the site after dashing the cyclist and fled away with the bus. It was also averred that due to the treatment in the hospital, the claimants had to spent Rs. 1500/-. The deceased was only fourteen years old and as stated, he was a brilliant boy and there was expectation of the claimants regarding the bright future of the boy. After holding that the claimants are entitled to get compensation, learned Tribunal assessed the quantum of compensation by imagining the minimum income of the deceased boy in future at Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- per month and then by reduction of half of the amount as his personal expenses, the dependency was calculated at Rs. 150/- and then the yearly dependency was calculated at Rs. 1,800/- and then by using a multiplier of 20, the total amount of compensation has been assessed at Rs. 36,000/- only. 5. In the appeal, the claimants' main contention is that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is very low and the method of calculation of compensation is also totally erroneous. The learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the owner of the vehicle has also supported that the amount assessed is on the very lower side and the same required to be enhanced. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Prasad appearing for and on behalf of the Insurance Company submitted that the amount of compensation was assessed on the basis of the market rate and the money value of a rupee, at the relevant time about fifteen years back and now there is no scope of any enhancement of the same. According to him, in the year 1982-83, Rs. 36,000/- had much value. It has further been submitted that the whole of the amount has already been paid from the side of the Insurance and, as such, no more burden can be imposed on the insurance Company and even if any enhancement is made, the same may be paid by the owner of the vehicle. 6. It is true that at the relevant time about fifteen years back, Rs. 6. It is true that at the relevant time about fifteen years back, Rs. 36,000/- had got much value but then also for the life of a boy who had at the age of fourteen years having brilliant career in the school and when there was bright hope for the claimants, Rs. 36,000/- in the year 1982 can not be said to be proper amount of compensation learned Tribunal had committed error of law in the method of calculation of compensation. In such a case, for the death of a minor boy or girl having no income, assessment of compensation can not be on multiplier method, but it should be on lump sum basis considering the future prospect of the boy or girl, standard and status of the family in the society and the way of upliftment of the boy of girl by the parents. 7. In the present case, the boy was fourteen years old and was studying in class IX and the certificate produced shows that he was showing brilliance in his school and, as such, the parents must have a bright hope for the boy that too being the eldest son of the claimants. 8. Considering all aspects of the matter, I feel that 45,000/- ought to have been considered as proper amount of compensation to be levied in the case and, as such, I do so against the Insurance Company, when whole of the awarded amount together with interest has already been paid by the Insurance Company then rest of the amount with interest from this date up to the date of realisation at the rate of 9% per annum shall be paid by the Insurance Company within two months next. If the payment is not made within two months next, as mentioned above, then the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum from this date upto the date of realisation of the balance amount. 9. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed on modification of the awarded amount as mentioned above.