JUDGMENT (DR. J.N. BHATT, C.J.) 1. After having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, as well as, the ratio propounded in the decision rendered in the case of "Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Ors": (2003)2 Supreme Court Cases 274, the amendment petition filed on behalf of respondent no.1 , on the analogous principles of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it shall stand allowed. By this appeal, the appellant Oriental Insurance Company has assailed the award passed by the Claim Tribunal-cum-2nd Additional District Judge, Darbhanga, in Claim Case No. 15 of 1995, dated 31.1.2002, whereby, the claim petition came to be granted and an amount of Rs, 2,68,200/- with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till payment by way of compensation for the pre-mature demise of the wife of the original claimant, respondent no.1 herein, was awarded for the reasons stated therein. 2. It is true, that the claim for the loss of life of the wife was for Rs. 2,000001-(two lakhs). The life of the wife of respondent no.1 was cut short at the cruel hands of the providence in a vehicular accident which occurred on 15.6.1995, near Outer Gate of Private Bus Stand, Police Station, Lalit Narain Mithila University, District Darbhanga at about 11 A.M., wherein, a bus was involved which was being driven by second respondent no.2 Sunil Kumar Karn and it was (sic) opponent No.1. Om Prakash Bharti which was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, Limited, original opponent no. 3 and appellant before this Court. Respondent no.1 is the husband of the deceased Mohani Devi, wherein, respondents 2 to 7 are minor children of the deceased who sustained fatal injury and died at the spot. She was aged about 38 years fruits and fishes. She was aged about 38 years at the time of unfortunate demise. Since the factum of accident was not in question and she was a third party and negligence having thus been established on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the death of Mohani Devi was on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending bus involved in the accident. 3. 3. In so far as, the quantification of damages has been concerned, the Tribunal has considered the certain principles of law in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as, the guidelines provided in the structured formula in Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and awarded a consolidated amount of Rs. 7,68,200/- which in the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as, considering the principles of law of tort and the structured formula/guidelines is quite just and hence requiring no interfe ence in this appeal. 4. Since the initial claim for compensation of Rs. 2,00000/- was sought to be enhanced in course of the appeal by giving an application for amendment in the application on the analogous principles and the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. it has been granted keeping in mind the principles of law enunciated in the case of "Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Ors. (supra)", nearly as possible, so that the economic loss sustained by them on account of pre-mature death could be justly compensated. 5. On the plain perusal and evaluation of the factual profile of the present case the amount awarded to the extent of Rs. 52,000/- to the unfortunate father who has lost his young son between 12 to 15 years is grossly inadequate. It is diametrically opposite to the several propositions of law propounded so far. It is, therefore, necessary to revise upwarded the amount of compensation. In this context, since the child was between 12 to 15 years and was a student of Class six and after school hours he was partly, also, doing the work of a helper as per evidence of the father, apart from examining the earning in such a situation, the Parliament in its wisdom has, also, made structured formula in the Second Schedule in terms of the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act which needs to be considered and it has not been considered and appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding the amount of compensation in the present case on hand. 6. The Second Schedule while reading in terms of the formula of Section 163-A is structured for payment of compensation for third party fatal accident or injury cases. 6. The Second Schedule while reading in terms of the formula of Section 163-A is structured for payment of compensation for third party fatal accident or injury cases. The claims as per this Schedule in absence of any evidence about the income of the injured or the deceased can be assessed at Rs.15,000/- per annum. For the purpose of consideration of multiplier the age of the deceased is important. In the present case the deceased was below 15 years. Therefore, according to the structured formula 15 multiplier is appropriate as prescribed. If the amount of 15,000/- is multiplied by the multiplier of 15 it comes to an amount at Rs. 2,25,000/- (two lakhs twenty five thousand). Obviously, in terms of the other clauses provided in the Schedule for funeral expenses, loss of estate and medical expenses a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- would be reasonable. It is, therefore, the original claimant-appellant before this Court in this appeal is entitled to the compensation of an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (two lakhs fifty thousand) with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of filing of the petition till the payment divided by 1/3rd towards the expenses for the deceased. Therefore, the amount of compensation of Rs.15,000/- x 15 = 2, 25,000 + 25,000 = 2,50,000/- divided by 1/3 comes to Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of compensation under both the heads-monetary and non monetary for the untimely demise of the deceased at the cruel hands of providence with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on Rs. 1,50,000/- from the date of application till the realisation. 7. The Insurance Company, therefore, shall pay the aforesaid amount deducting or minusing the amount, already, deposited or paid to the claimant within a period of two months from today, failing which, it will be open for the appellant to execute the award in accordance with law. 8. The claim amount is modified to the aforesaid extent while allowing this appeal with cost.