SHAMBHOO SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount awarded in Claim case No. 15 of 1997 vide award dated 16. 7. 1997 passed by III Addl. M. A. C. T. , dhar. ( 2 ) THE case of the claimants was that on 12. 8. 1996 their son Himmat Singh, aged about 14 years, a student of VIII class, was going on cycle to his school in Dhamnod from Sanjay Nagar. The respondent No. 1 came from opposite direction driving truck no. MP 09/d-5225 belonging to respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Himmat Singh, as a result of which he died on the spot. The deceased was also earning member of the family. He used to sit in the grocery shop of his father and earn Rs. 100 per day. The claimants filed claim case seeking compensation of rs. 8,00,000. The respondent Nos. 1 and2 proceeded ex pane. The respondent No. 3 resisted the claim. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that respondent no. 1 drove the truck No. MP 09/d-5225 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Himmat Singh, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died. The Tribunal assessed the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs. 800 and after deducting for personal expenses of the deceased, determined the dependency of the appellants at rs. 500 per month and Rs. 6,000 yearly and applied multiplier of 15 and awarded rs. 92,000 as compensation. ( 3 ) MR. Chawla, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hopelessly low. He put reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Haji zainullah Khan v. Nagar Mahapalika, allahabad, 1994 ACJ 993 (SC) and the case of Shanti Bai v. Charan Singh, 1998 acj 848 (SC), wherein compensation of rs. 1,50,000 was awarded for the death of boys aged about 14 and 18 years respectively. On the other hand, Mr. Swami learned counsel for respondent No. 3, supported the impugned award. ( 4 ) WE considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides and perused the record. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in case of Haji Zainullah Khan (supra), awarded compensation of Rs. On the other hand, Mr. Swami learned counsel for respondent No. 3, supported the impugned award. ( 4 ) WE considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides and perused the record. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in case of Haji Zainullah Khan (supra), awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 for the death of 20 years old boy who was a B. Sc. 1st year student. In case of Shanti Bai, the same amount was awarded for the death of a boy aged about 14 years belonging to labour class taking into consideration the fact that his elder brother was earning Rs. 10 per day by doing labour work keeping in view future economic prospects. The case in hand stands on stronger footing. In this case, the deceased Himmat Singh who was aged about 14 years and was studying in the VIII class, used to sit in the shop of his father and was an earning member. Even otherwise, it has been provided in Second Schedule to section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 that notional income for the purpose of compensation to those who had no income should be taken to be Rs. 15,000 per annum. If the evidence of the appellants is not taken to be true, in view of the above provisions of the Schedule, we take the notional income of the deceased at rs. 15,000. On deducting 1/3rd of it for the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency would come to Rs. 10,000 per annum. In view of Second Schedule for the death of boys to the age of 15 years, multiplier of 15 has to be taken. On multiplying it with the multiplicand, the amount of compensation comes to (Rs. 10,000 x 15) = Rs. 1,50,000. Thus, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court as mentioned above and Second Schedule to section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, we are of the opinion, that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is very low and we enhance this amount to Rs. 1,50,000. ( 5 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified and it is directed that the respondents shall pay rs. 1,50,000. ( 5 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified and it is directed that the respondents shall pay rs. 1,50,000 severally and jointly to the appellants (after adjusting the amount already deposited) with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application till realisation. Out of the enhanced amount Rs. 24,000 with accrued interest be deposited in each of the appellants' name in maximum interest paying scheme in nationalised bank for a period of six years. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. .