GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant-claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 15. 4. 1999 passed in Claim Case No. 5 of 1997 by the iv Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, whereby the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from its liability and declined to award interest on the amount of compensation, on account of delay by the claimant. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the incident took place from tractor-trolley Nos. MPI 8837 and mpi 8856. It is also admitted on record that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by one Kailash and was carrying 'baraat'. The learned Tribunal exonerated the insurance company on the ground that the tractor was insured only for agricultural purposes and not for the purposes of carrying 'baraat' or passengers in the trolley. It is also not in dispute that one kailash s/o Gendalal was a cyclist who was hit by the tractor-trolley and died on the spot, in the said accident. At that time he was aged about 15 years and was the only son of Gendalal, who also died subsequently as a natural death. The claimant sunderbai is the widow of late Gendalal and the mother of deceased Kailash. The tribunal has awarded a compensation of rs. 50,000 against the owner of the tractor and has exonerated the insurance company on the ground of breach of policy and has also not awarded any interest. The Claims tribunal rejected the evidence of PW 1 sunderbai to the effect that the deceased boy was working as labourer and was earning Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 5,000 per month. It is also not in dispute that accident took place on 18. 4. 1988 and the claim petition" was filed on 28. 7. 1989 and thereafter it remained pending before the Tribunal till passing of final award on 15. 4. 1999. ( 3 ) EXH. P-l is the copy of F. I. R. , Exh. P-2 is the certified copy of spot map and exh. P-3 is copy of challan paper. Though nothing has been mentioned in the F. I. R. about carrying of 'baraat' in the trolley but in the petition the claimant himself has stated that at the time of accident tractor was carrying 'baraat' though in the W. S. the owner has denied this fact. P-3 is copy of challan paper. Though nothing has been mentioned in the F. I. R. about carrying of 'baraat' in the trolley but in the petition the claimant himself has stated that at the time of accident tractor was carrying 'baraat' though in the W. S. the owner has denied this fact. The insurance company has also stated that at the time of accident the 'baraat was sitting in the tractor-trolley and a specific objection was taken about the non-liability of the insurance company in view of breach of terms and conditions of the policy. PW 2 devisingh, the sole eyewitness of the spot has also admitted this fact in his cross-examination that at the time of accident the tractor and trolley was used for carrying 'baraat'. The insurance company has also examined DW 1 Mohd. Zahir Khan on the ground of breach of policy, but there is no dispute that the deceased cyclist was third party and was not travelling in the trolley. ( 4 ) THOUGH the owner and driver of the tractor-trolley, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their W. S. and denied the fact of carrying 'baraat', but after filing of the w. S. the owner has neither examined himself nor produced any evidence that the tractor was not used for the purposes of carrying 'baraat' at the time of accident. The Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of the policy. ( 5 ) I have perused the pleadings and evidence on record. From the evidence on record it is clear that the deceased cyclist was third party. Chapter XI of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 contains provision for insurance of motor vehicle against third party risk. Section 146 of the Act imposes a prohibition against use of motor vehicle in a public place unless the vehicle is covered by a policy or insurance though some categories of vehicles are exempted from aforesaid compulsion but that question is not involved in this case. The object of section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act is to provide statutory protection to a third party in respect of death or bodily injury or damages to their property while using the vehicle in a public place. Therefore, the insurance of the vehicle under section 146 read with section 147 has been made compulsory. The object of section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act is to provide statutory protection to a third party in respect of death or bodily injury or damages to their property while using the vehicle in a public place. Therefore, the insurance of the vehicle under section 146 read with section 147 has been made compulsory. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla, 2001 ACJ 843 (SC), it has been held by the Apex Court as under:"similarly, in this context sub-section (5) is equally important and hence that is also extracted below: 149 (5) If the amount with an insurer becomes liable under this section to pay in respect of a liability incurred by a person insured by a policy, exceeds the amount for which the insurer would apart from the provisions of this section be liable under the policy in respect of that liability, the insurer shall be entitled to recover the excess from that person'. "therefore, it is clear that under the law the liability of the insurance company is statutory in nature so far as the claim of third party is concerned. Thus, in this case the learned Tribunal has not considered the case of Kamla (supra), and has wrongly exonerated the insurance company from its liability. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court it is held that the insurance company is liable to pay to the claimant and the insurance company can recover the same from the insured. Thus, this appeal is liable to be allowed to that extent and the finding recorded by the Tribunal exonerating insurance company from its liability also liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) SO far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has also not assessed the proper compensation in this case. It is true that for the death of a boy aged 15 years, as per Second Schedule compensation for third party fatal accident is to be calculated and payable on the basis of structured formula. Since the Tribunal has disbelieved about the income of the deceased in such cases formula of notional income can be applied, according to which for non-earning persons in a case of fatal accident notional income of Rs. Since the Tribunal has disbelieved about the income of the deceased in such cases formula of notional income can be applied, according to which for non-earning persons in a case of fatal accident notional income of Rs. 15,000 per year has to be taken into consideration and if it is taken into consideration then the income of the deceased should be treated as Rs. 15,000 per year and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses the amount of dependency would come to rs. 10,000 per year. ( 7 ) IT is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the petition Gendalal, father of the deceased has expired and now his mother is the only claimant who is aged about 50 years and looking to the age of the mother who is the survived legal heir of the deceased a multiplier of 14 would be the proper multiplier. Thus, the amount of total compensation comes to Rs. 10,000 x 14 = Rs. 1,40,000. The claimant is also entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards the funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000 towards love and affection. Thus, claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs. 1,55,000 and also interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent per annum w. e. f. 25. 10. 1996 when the case was placed before the Lok Adalat for settlement by the Tribunal till its final payment. Interest for the rest of the period is disallowed on account of delay caused by the claimant herself in the Tribunal. Award is modified to that extent. The insurance company would be entitled to deduct any amount paid under no fault liability and shall be entitled to recover from the insured. Insurance company is further directed to pay the said amount to the claimant within two months strictly by crossed and A/c payee cheque. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal is allowed as directed above with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. .