GURURAJAN, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the North West Karnataka Road transport Corporation challenging the award dated 1. 2. 2001 passed in MVC 82 of 1996 by the Presiding Officer, Additional MACT raichur. In the said case, a claim was preferred by one Kariyappa and Smt. Seethamma seeking compensation for the death of their child on 24. 3. 1996. Matter was contested. Trial Judge has granted 1,05,000. 00 together with interest. MFA No. 2394 of 2001 ( 2 ) THIS Appeal is filed Kariyappa and Seethamma challenging the very order dated 1. 2. 2001 passed by the Presiding Officer of additional MACT Raichur in MVC No. 82 of 1996. In this appeal dated 19th December 2002 they are seeking enhancement of compensation. ( 3 ) THE Corporation in MFA No. 1940 of 2001 has challenged the finding with regard to rash and negligent driving of the bus. They have also challenged the grant of compensation. In the connected appeal MFA No. 2934 of 2001 the claimants have challenged only the quantum. MFA No. 3399 of 2001: ( 4 ) THIS Appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the MACT No. 928 of 1994 dated 3. 4. 2001. Appellant suffered injuries and he filed MVC No. 928 of 1994. Trial judge has granted Rs. 60,000. 00 together with interest. Appellant is seeking for enhancement. ( 5 ) CORPORATION in MFA No. 1940 of 2001 is challenging a finding with regard to rash and negligent driving of the bus. They have also questioned compensation. In the connected appeal MFA No. 2394 of 2001 claimant has challenged only the quantum. In MFA no. 3399 of 2001 enhancement is sought for by the claimant. ( 6 ) ALL these appeals are heard together. ( 7 ) MFA Nos. 1940 and 2394 of 2000 arise out of same judgment dated1. 2. 2001 passed in MVC No. 82 of 1996. After hearing the learned Counsel, I have perused the material on record. From the material on record, it is seen that the accident took place on 24. 3. 1996. Deceased was going on left side of the road. At that point of time, a vehicle belonging to KSRTC bearing No. KA-I/f- 5916 caused an accident to the claimant cyclist. After hearing the learned Counsel, I have perused the material on record. From the material on record, it is seen that the accident took place on 24. 3. 1996. Deceased was going on left side of the road. At that point of time, a vehicle belonging to KSRTC bearing No. KA-I/f- 5916 caused an accident to the claimant cyclist. ( 8 ) LEARNED Judge has framed 4 issues in para-8 of the award and he has answered first issue in the affirmative, second in the negative. Finally he has granted compensation of Rs. 1,05,000. 00. In the judgment the learned Judge notices the material facts in addition to Mahazar. He considered the evidence of the driver. He then ultimately has given a finding that rash and negligent accident is proved. The said order is based on facts. I do not find any arbitrariness in the finding with regard to the claim. The contention of the Corporation, in the circumstances, is rejected. ( 9 ) IN so far as compensation is concerned, learned Judge has chosen to grant Rs 1,05,000. 00. While claimant wants enhancement, corporation states that it is on the higher side. In the connected appeal MFA No. 3399 of 2000 learned Judge has granted compensation of Rs. 60,000. 00. That was a case involving death of a boy studying in 7th standard and he was about 9 years. Counsel says that the enhancement must be granted. ( 10 ) PARTIES have referred to various citations before me for the purpose of awarding compensation. This Court has considered a case of death of a boy in GENERAL MANAGER vs YELLAPPA dharmoji KITTUR1. This Court observed as under: It is impossible to estimate the magnitude of the calamity that has befallen the parents. All the bright colours of their life are etched away by this tragedy. Death has such an inexorable quality that in estimating its consequences, one can do more than recognize the total ineptitude of any logical process on which estimates are based. Death is a negation of the logic of the living. No amount of money can bring back to the hapless parents their dead son. It takes quite some time for the intensity and the utter finality of this loss to fully down on them. Law provides reparation only in the manner known to it, namely, making reparation in financial terms. Death is a negation of the logic of the living. No amount of money can bring back to the hapless parents their dead son. It takes quite some time for the intensity and the utter finality of this loss to fully down on them. Law provides reparation only in the manner known to it, namely, making reparation in financial terms. Niceties of calculation help us up to a point. But certainly arithmetic fails to provide a solution which commonsense demands. It is in this area that a judge realizes the impossibility of comparing life with nothingness or nonexistence implicit in death. As one judge asked: in a different context, how could a Judge compare his experience of life and set it against his ignorance of death? this Court observed in Para-4 reading as under:- It is no doubt true that in cases of very young children, no basis exists for estimating the future pecuniary benefits which the parents could be said to have lost by the death. The prospects of employment and of financial assistance, to the parents who look up to their dutiful and grateful children, are so remote in the 1. ILR 1987 Kar 3564 future that any estimates tend to become mere speculative possibilities than reasonable probabilities. Such estimates of chances of future monetary contributions to the parents are pressed into extinction by multiple uncertainties and imponderables of the future. It is, therefore, that awards are made in such cases in merely conventional sums. By these tests no award can, in the case of very young children, be made for loss of future pecuniary benefits. In that case, the Court accepted the grant of Rs. 29,000. 00 with 18 per cent interest. ( 11 ) THE Supreme Court in HAJI ZAINULLA KHAN (DEAD) BY l. RS. vs NAGAR MAHAPALIKA, ALLAHABAD2 has considered the question of grant of compensation in such cases, and has chosen to grant compensation of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 in somewhat similar or same circumstances. ( 12 ) A Division Bench of this Court in Smt. PUTTAMMA AND another vs D. V. KRISHNAPPA AND ANOTHER3 MFA No. 1886 of 1999 disposed of on 15. 6. 1999 notices the judgment of the Apex court in 1994 ACJ 995 and also judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in ILR 1987 (4) KAR 3564. After noticing both the judgments, the Division Bench ordered compensation of Rs. 6. 1999 notices the judgment of the Apex court in 1994 ACJ 995 and also judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in ILR 1987 (4) KAR 3564. After noticing both the judgments, the Division Bench ordered compensation of Rs. 1,50,000. 00. This Court in para-5 of its judgment has ruled as under: In the case of Haji Zainulla Khan, (supra) the Supreme Court, while dealing with the question of compensation payable in respect of a student of 14 year, has held that Rs. 1,50,000. 00 will be a just compensation. We can take this to be the conventional amount for awarding compensation for non-earning members of the family like the young children and students. This view of ours now finds support from the Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that notional income for the purpose of compensation to those who had no income can be taken to be rs. 15,000 per annum out of which 1/3 has to be deducted for notional personal expenses and thereafter on application of appropriate multiplier, the compensation can be ascertained. The multiplier for the children aged upto 15 years has been set out as 15. On applying the same, the compensation payable in case of the children upto 15 years will come to Rs. 1,50,000. 00. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of NAGAPPA vs GENERAL MANAGER KSRTC4 has granted Rs. 1,92,000. 00 in PUTTANNA AND ANOTHER vs LAKSHMAN AND OTHERS5, the Division Bench has granted 6 per cent interest. A Division Bench of this Court in ILR 1999 KAR SN 69 has ruled after noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court that compensation payable in the case of a child of 15 years in Rs. 1,50,000. 00 ( 13 ) RECENTLY, in PAPA NAYAKA AND ANOTHER vs krishnamurthy AND OTHERS6, another learned Judge, by a detailed order, after considering various judgments including that of the Supreme Court and of the Division Bench, has enhanced compensation to Rs. 1,50,000. 00. ( 14 ) IN the light of these judgments, what is clear to me is that the recent judgment in ILR 2000 KAR 915 is based on a judgment of the Apex Court and also on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court. In these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to award less than Rs. 1,50,000. In these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to award less than Rs. 1,50,000. 00 as compensation payable to claimants in these cases. I do not think that I should vary from the grant of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 in terms of the Division Bench judgment. ( 15 ) ARGUMENTS of the Corporation that what is awarded is an exorbitant compensation cannot be accepted in the given set of facts. The Corporation has referred to some judgments with regard to lesser compensation. The Division Bench Judgment, which I have referred in the earlier portion of the order is based on a judgment of the Apex Court. In that case, this Court has granted rs. 1,50,000. 00. Another learned Judge has confirmed compensation of Rs. 1,52,000. 00 in the case of a boy of 6 years, by a detailed order in MFA No. 2895 of 1998 dated 28. 2. 2002. The preponderous opinion of the learned Judges is to grant of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 up to the age of 15 years. In MFA No. 3399 of 2001 the boy is of 9 years has died and compensation of Rs. 60,000. 00 is granted. In the light of the above finding, I deem it proper to enhance the same to Rs. 1,50,000. 00 payable by respondents 3 and 4 jointly and severally. Out of Rs. 1,50,000. 00, I deem it proper 2. 1994 (2) ACJ 993 3. ILR 1999 KAR SN 69 4. ILR 1996 1231 5. 2000 ILR (KAR) 1908 6. ILR 2002 KAR 915 to direct Rs. 1,00,000. 00 to be kept in a nationalized bank as fixed deposit with high yielding interest for a period of two years, with liberty to withdraw the interest accruable thereon by the appellant. Balance amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent is ordered to be made over to the claimant. ( 16 ) IN the other two appeals, boy was 8 years old. In the light of my earlier discussion, I deem it proper to enhance compensation of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 which includes compensation payable towards other heads as well together with interest at 6 per cent, out of which Rs. 1,00,000. 00 is ordered to be kept in a high yielding fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of five years. 1,50,000. 00 which includes compensation payable towards other heads as well together with interest at 6 per cent, out of which Rs. 1,00,000. 00 is ordered to be kept in a high yielding fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of five years. Interest accruable theron occurred is, however, payable without insisting for court orders. Balance amount is ordered to be made over in equal proportion. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .