Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Both these appeals are directed against common award dated 30.10.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jaipur (“Tribunal”) in MACT Case Nos. 1811/1996 and 1812/1996, having arisen out of same accident, as such are being disposed of by this common order. Instant appeals have been filed by claimants (parents) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by Tribunal. 2. Under the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1.5 Lacs as compensation in each of claim petitions (Supra), for the death of Krishna Hemlata, who and are daughters of claimants (parents) while going on Bajaj Sunny Scooty No. RJ-14/13M/9290 to fill up their examination forms on 210.1996 and when they reached near Jhulelal Mandir, a truck (Trola) No. RJ-01-G-2090, being driven rashly and negligently, came from behind and hit their scooty and both died in the accident. Krishna was student of 2nd Year TDC and as alleged, besides her studies, she was earning also by way of tuitions, while other daughter, Hemlata was student of 1st year TDC and was allegedly contributing to her family and financially assisting parents. The Tribunal after taking note of facts placed on record, awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 1.5 lacs each for both the daughters. 3. Shri Sandip Mathur, Counsel for claimants urged that even where the deceased is considered to be non-earning member in the family, her notional income has to be taken at Rs. 15,000/- per annum, for which 15 is proper multiplier as per Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”), which ought to have been adopted by the Tribunal but without taking into consideration material on record, it granted merely a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1.5 lacs to the claimants in each of claim applications, which is not reasonable and justified. In support of his contention, Shri Mathur placed reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in Manju Devi vs. Musafir Paswan, 2005 (1) TAC 609 (SC) and that of this Court in S.C. Mittal vs. RSRTC, 2005 R.A.R. 463 (Raj.). 4. On the other hand, Shri Ashok Mehta, assisted by Shri Vigyan Shah, Counsel for respondents, contended that the deceased were non-earning member in the family and considering this fact, no error has been committed by awarding lump sum compensation which is fair and reasonable one requiring no interference by this Court at least for enhancement thereof . 4. On the other hand, Shri Ashok Mehta, assisted by Shri Vigyan Shah, Counsel for respondents, contended that the deceased were non-earning member in the family and considering this fact, no error has been committed by awarding lump sum compensation which is fair and reasonable one requiring no interference by this Court at least for enhancement thereof . As regards the decisions cited by Counsel for claimants, it has been urged that at the time when the award was passed by the Tribunal in October, 2001, there was consistent practice even in the Apex Court to award Rs. 1.5 lacs in case of deceased, being a non-earning member. 5. I have considered rival contentions and perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal. As per 2nd Schedule to the Act, up to the age of 15 years, multiplier is stated of 15 to be applied and when the legislature in 2nd Schedule has not made any difference in application of multiplier for the death of non-earning member, I am of the opinion that at least in case of present deceased (daughter of claimants) who were respectively 22 and 18 years of age, even if they considered to be non-earning members, there cannot be made any difference with regard to quantum of compensation as awarded in the Judgment referred to (Supra). In my considered opinion, this matter is squarely covered by Judgment of the Apex Court in Manju Devi vs. Musafir Paswan (Supra), where in the case of death of boy of 13 years, the Apex Court took annual income of the deceased of Rs. 15,000/-taking him a non-earning member as per Second Schedule and therefrom the amount has not been deducted for his personal expenses and applying multiplier of 15, total compensation was awarded to a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-under the head of loss of economic dependency of the family. 6. In view of settled legal position (Supra), these two appeals are allowed and in each of Claim Application Nos. 1811/1996 and 1812/1996, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation for a sum of Rs. 75,000/-(Rs. 2,25,000/-minus Rs. 1,50,000/-awarded vide impugned Award), which shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment. Enhanced compensation with interest shall be paid by the Insurance Company through A/c payee bank draft/ pay order to the claimants within two months. 7. 75,000/-(Rs. 2,25,000/-minus Rs. 1,50,000/-awarded vide impugned Award), which shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment. Enhanced compensation with interest shall be paid by the Insurance Company through A/c payee bank draft/ pay order to the claimants within two months. 7. No order as to costs.