Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.- It is claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation granted vide award dated 18..08.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Gangapur City (Sawai Madhopur district) (“Tribunal”) in MACT Case No. 43/1997. 2. Claimants are parents of deceased son Ramhari aged 19 years, who was student of 10th Class, on 04.04.1997 while he was going on bicycle on way from Bajirpur to Bodoli and has reached near Bhandari Pulia, was hit by roadways (RSRTC) but No. RJ-14-P-1416, being driven rashly & negligently by its driver, and as a result of accident, he died. The Tribunal after taking note of facts placed on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/-(Supra), with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of the Award till actual payment. 3. Shri Rajnish Gupta, Counsel for claimants urged that even where the deceased is considered to be non-earning member in the family, his notional income has been considered of Rs. 15,000/-per annum and multiplier of 15 is adopted as per Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”), which ought to have been adopted by the Tribunal, but without taking note of material on record, granted a compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/-, which is not adequate and justified. In support of his contention, Shri Gupta placed reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in Manju Devi vs. Musafir Paswan, 2005 (1) TAC 609 (SC) and also of this Court in Shree Lal vs. R. Surya Kanta, 2005 (3) WLC (Raj.) 707. 4. On the other hand, Counsel for respondents, contended that looking to the age of deceased what has been awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and no interference in the impugned Award is required to be made. 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 of 15 is 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. In the present case, deceased (son of claimants), who was also a non-earning member, there cannot be made any difference with regard to quantum of compensation as awarded in the Judgment referred to (Supra). In the present case, deceased (son of claimants), who was also a non-earning member, 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 covered by Judgment of the Apex Court in Manju Devi vs. Musafir Paswan (Supra), wherein the deceased was a boy of 13 years, the Apex Court took his annual income of Rs. 15,000/-being a non-earning member as per Second Schedule and therefrom no amount has been deducted for his personal expenses and after applying multiplier of 15, awarded compensation to a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-under the head of loss of economic dependency to the family. 6. In view of settled legal position (Supra), this appeal is allowed and the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation for a sum of Rs. 75,000/-(Rs. 2,37,000/-(including Rs. 12,000/-awarded by Tribunal towards love & affection, and funeral expenses) minus Rs. 1,62,000/-awarded vide impugned Award which shall also carry interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment. Enhanced compensation with interest shall be deposited by the respondent Corporation through A/c payee bank draft/pay order before the Tribunal within two months. The Tribunal is further directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in FDR for three years in Nationalised Bank in joint name of claimants who will be entitled to receive monthly interest on FDR supra as well as full amount of FDR on its maturity. 7. No order as to costs.