Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-It is claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Jaipur District (“Tribunal”) in MACT Case No. 342/1993 vide award dated 211.1998. 2. Claimants are parents of deceased daughter Kumari Munni aged 5 years, who died in an accident on 15.05.1993. The Tribunal after taking note of facts placed on record, awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs. 73,000/-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 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, awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 70.000/-towards loss of financial dependency and Rs. 3,000/-towards medical expenses, to the claimants, which is not adequate and justified. 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 Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (3) ACJ 1735 and also of this Court in Shree Lal vs. R. Surya Kanta, 2005 (3) WLC 707 (Raj.) and Hanuman Sant vs. Madan, 1998 ACJ 918 and unreported Judgment of this Court DB in Gordhan vs. Hariram Special Appeal (Civil) No. 3/2002 decided on 28.04.2003. 4. On the other hand, Counsel for respondents, contended that looking to the age of deceased 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. 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 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). 6. In the present case, deceased (daughter 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). 6. It is true that loss which parents have suffered on account of death of their daughter in no manner can be compensated but under statute, they can be monetarily compensated to some extent. No justification has been put forward on record by Tribunal in awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs. 70,000 /-. Instant case relates to an accident which took place on 15.05.1993 prior to amendment made in 1994 in Schedule to the Act, and age of the deceased is only 5 years at the time of accident, therefore, in such like cases, this Court has considered it just to award lump sum compensation of Rs. 1.50 lacs; as such taking note of decision of this Court (DB) in Gordhan vs. Hariram (Supra), I consider it just to award lump sum compensation of Rs. 1.50 lacs. 7. In view of settled legal position (Supra), this appeal is allowed and the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation for a sum of Rs. 77,000/-(Rs. 1,50,000/-minus Rs. 73,000/-awarded vide impugned award), which shall also carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment. 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. No order as to costs.