Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs. 45,000/-awarded by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ajmer ("Tribunal") vide award dated 12.02.1999 in MACT Case No. 275/90. 2. Claimants are mother and brother of deceased Radha, aged 15 years, who met with accident with offending vehicle owned by R.S.R.T.C., and died at the spot on 03/03/1990 while she alongwith claimants was returning from Haridwar to Nagaur in UP RSRTC. The Tribunal assessed income of deceased as Rs. 500/-per month and after applying multiplier of 5, awarded Rs. 30,000/-towards loss of income, and Rs. 10,000/-towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 5,000/-towards funeral expenses and in all Rs. 45,000/-as total compensation with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of claim petition till actual payment. 3. 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 after Schedule came into force from 111.1994 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 into consideration material on record, granted a compensation of Rs. 45,000/-towards loss of financial dependency, love and affection, funeral expenses etc., to the claimants, which is not adequate and just. In support of his contention. Counsel 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 707 (Raj.). 4. On the other hand, Counsel for respondents, contended that the deceased was 15 years of age and no error has been committed by the Tribunal in assessing her income as Rs. 500/-and being a girl, ordinarily, could have been married at the stage of her majority, in such circumstances there was no loss of income to the family/claimants after she could get married, therefore what has been awarded by the Tribunal is adequate 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. 5. I have considered rival contentions and perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Loss suffered on account of death of Kumari Radha cannot be replaced even by making payment of compensation; but under the statute, in such fatal accident cases, the loss can be substituted by making reasonable and just compensation to claimants. After amendment in the Act came into force from 111.1994, 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 (daughter of claimant No. 1), though was alleged to be an earning member but only of meagre amount, however, there cannot be made any difference with regard to quantum of compensation as awarded in the Judgment referred to (Supra). The deceased was 15 years of age and had future career. No presumption can be drawn as considered by the Tribunal that after she gets married, there cannot be loss of income to claimants. Taking not of 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, in the facts and circumstances of present case being accident of the year 1990, Rs. 1,50,000/-would be reasonable compensation to be awarded and the Tribunal has committed an error in granting compensation only to a sum of Rs. 45,000/-. 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. 1,05,000/-(Rs. 1,50,000/-minus Rs. 45,000/-awarded vide impugned Award), which shall also carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment. Enhanced compensation with interest shall be deposited by Insurance Company through A/c payee bank draft/pay order before the Tribunal within one month. 7. 1,05,000/-(Rs. 1,50,000/-minus Rs. 45,000/-awarded vide impugned Award), which shall also carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment. Enhanced compensation with interest shall be deposited by Insurance Company through A/c payee bank draft/pay order before the Tribunal within one month. 7. 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. 8. It is made clear that no premature encashment shall be permitted in respect of fixed deposits, however, on an application being made to the Tribunal and it being satisfied about urgency of any need and absence of financial resources to meet any urgent financial need may permit loan or advance or premature encashment by a reasoned order. To the above extent, impugned Award stands modified. No order as to costs.