JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By the impugned award, dated 3.2.2000, passed in TS (MAC) No. 30/99, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Dharma Nagar, Agartala, has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,82,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son, Mahafuj Ahammed, aged about seven years, which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. TRT-830, on 7.7.1999, at Kadamtola Rahibari road. 2. I have heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. PK Biswas, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. It is not in dispute that the said deceased died, on 7.7.1999, on being hit by the vehicle aforementioned. The learned Tribunal has held that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle. This finding could not be assailed. The fact that the said deceased was 6 years 8 months is also not in dispute. In such a situation, the learned Tribunal held that the notional income of the deceased can be taken to be around Rs. 1,500 per month and applying 15 as multiplier and deducting therefrom 1/3rd of the total amount, it held that the claimants were entitled to receive Rs. 1,82,000/- as compensation in addition to Rs. 2,000/- payable to them as funeral expenses. It is this finding, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. An insurer cannot, as held in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co Ltd., reported in, challenge, by way of a writ petition, an award given by a Tribunal on the mere ground that the compensation awarded is high or excessive, for, an erroneous decision, in the absence of any other ground, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. The principal challenge to the impugned award in the present writ petition is on the question of the quantum of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal. That the insurer, such as, the present petitioner, cannot challenge an award made by a Tribunal on the ground of quantum of compensation only cannot be disputed and has not, in fact, been disputed before me. 5. That the insurer, such as, the present petitioner, cannot challenge an award made by a Tribunal on the ground of quantum of compensation only cannot be disputed and has not, in fact, been disputed before me. 5. Coupled with the above, the second schedule, which has been framed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, can be treated as guidelines for determining compensation even in a case, which arises out of an application made under Section 166 of the said Act. According to this schedule, the multiplier to be used in respect of the death of a person up to the age of 15 years shall be 15 and that a non-earning person's notional income for determination of compensation can be taken to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum. In the light of the provisions so made in the schedule aforementioned, the multiplier used by the learned Tribunal cannot also be said to be incorrect and the notional income fixed by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary or unreasonable. Thus, the finding as regards the quantum of compensation reached by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse and/or without evidence. 6. Situated thus, it is clear that when the offending vehicle was, admittedly, insured with the present writ petitioner as the insurer on the date of the accident, the said amount of Rs. 1,82,000/- was liable to be paid by the petitioner and the learned Tribunal committed no error in passing such directions. So far as the directions to pay the interest is concerned, the same also, I do not find, in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 7. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same shall stand dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. 8. Send back the LCRs. Petition dismissed.