JUDGMENT : P. Shanmugam and K. Gnanaprakasam, JJ.—The claimants have filed the civil miscellaneous appeal against the decree and judgment dated 12.3.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 3899 of 1995. 2. Pandian, son of the appellants, while travelling on his cycle on 18.7.1994, at about 6.45 p.m. in New Mahabalipuram Road, a lorry owned by the respondent No. 1 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against him on the back side of the cycle and caused his death. The claimants made a claim of Rs. 7,00,000 (rupees seven lakh) but whereas the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal passed an award only for Rs. 60,000 (rupees sixty thousand only). Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred this appeal. 3. The case of the claimants-appellants that their son Pandian was employed as a carpenter is not in dispute. The appellants have stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 80 per day. One Paramasivam was examined as PW 3, who in his evidence had stated that he was also working as a carpenter and he and the deceased Pandian, were earning a total sum of Rs. 150 per day. It is stated that the deceased was employed under Rajangam, but they have not chosen to examine the employer and, therefore, the Tribunal had not accepted the daily wages of the deceased at Rs. 80 said to have been earned by him. But, however, the Tribunal has not chosen to fix the reasonable wages of the deceased and arrived at the compensation under no fault liability and the same is questioned in this appeal. 4. It is seen from the records placed before the Tribunal that the appellants have stated that the age of the deceased was 18, but whereas the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 15 years, based upon the post-mortem certificate. Even at that age, though it was stated that he was working as a carpenter, at least he could have assisted the carpenter and in that capacity, he would have earned not less than Rs. 30 per day. In future years, there would be every possibility of earning more. Therefore, his monthly income could be fixed at Rs. 900, out of which he would very easily spend Rs. 30 per day. In future years, there would be every possibility of earning more. Therefore, his monthly income could be fixed at Rs. 900, out of which he would very easily spend Rs. 150 p.m. towards his personal expenses and would contribute Rs. 750 per month to the family. The annual contribution would be Rs. 9,000 (Rs. 750 x 12 : Rs. 9,000). As the deceased was aged about 15 years, the multiplier of 16 could easily be adopted, in which case, the total compensation payable would come to Rs. 1,44,000. As the appellants have lost their son at the age of 15 itself, the mental agony caused to them and the loss of estate are unbearable, for which a sum of Rs. 50,000 is awarded and they are entitled to funeral expenses, which is awarded at Rs. 2,500. We hereby add Rs. 3,500 to round off the compensation at Rs. 2,00,000. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and thereby the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 (rupees two lakh), which amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. No Costs.