Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-Mahendra, 18 years old son of the claimant-appellants, died in a motor accident on 12.05.1998. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide its award dated 15th January, 2001, granted Rs. 1,20,000/-as compensation payable to the appellants. On appeal preferred by the appellants, the learned Single Judge, however, came to conclusion that proper and just compensation has already been paid and, therefore, the appeal preferred against the award of Tribunal was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 27th April, 2001. It is against this order of the learned Single Judge that the present appeal has been filed under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants, on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in Manju Devi vs. Musafir Paswan, 2005 (1) TAC 609, contends that the present case was covered under second schedule and even in the case of death of 13 years boy, whose case too was covered under second schedule, compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/-was assessed. 3. The facts of the case in Manju Devis case (Supra), reveal that 13 years boy was killed in an accident on 2nd July, 1998. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle. Compensation at Rs. 90,000/-was assessed by the learned Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine. The Supreme Court while relying upon its earlier decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 held that multiplier is an accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation. As per second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age multiplier of 15 should have been applied inasmuch, as per second schedule, for a boy being non-earning person, a sum of Rs. 15,000/-must be taken as income and in the matter, aforesaid, compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/-was awarded. 4. The facts of present case are better inasmuch, Mahendra victim of the accident was 18 years of age and it was pleaded that he was engaged as agriculturist and earning something. Is not disputed that with regard to a victim of 18 years, as well, the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would apply. The appellants atleast would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/-. 5. Is not disputed that with regard to a victim of 18 years, as well, the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would apply. The appellants atleast would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/-. 5. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. It is held that the appellants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/-. We may clarify that amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-has already been made over to the appellants. Thus, they are now entitled only to amount of Rs. 1,05,000/-with interest calculated @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of appeal.