JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been directed against the impugned award dated 5.12.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur in a claim petition No. 47/2000 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,22,000/- has been paid as compensation on account of death of 15 years boy. 2. The claim petition was filed by the parents, brothers and sisters of the deceased. It is stated in the claim petition that due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 2 driver of Tractor No. RJ-05-1 R 3977 owned by respondent No. 1 an accident was caused on 22.1.2000 while the deceased was going on his cycle to village Pharso, resulting into death of deceased Amar Singh. 3. Impugned award has been challenged on the ground that the award amount is inadequate. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as memorandum of appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated his submissions as stated in the memorandum of appeal. Perusal of the impugned award reveals that Rs. 1,10,000/- has been awarded as compensation in lump sum and Rs. 10,000/- has been paid for love and affection to the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the compensation as a death case of a child. Rs. 1,10,000/- in lump sum award and Rs. 10,000/- has been paid for love and affection and Rs. 2,000/- has been paid for funeral expenses. His submission is that the law is settled so far the compensation in a death of 10-15 years boy is concerned. He has replied upon the case title Manju Devi and Another v. Musafir Paswan and Another, 2005 (1) TAC 609 (SC) wherein while dealing with the death of 13 years boy, the Apex Court observed as under : "In the case of U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 A.C.J. 831 : 1996 (2) T.A.C. 286 (S.C.) , it has been held by this court that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation. It has been held that the multiplier method must be accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country. It has been held that the multiplier method must be accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country. In view of this authority it will have to be held that the award of compensation had to be made by the multiplier method. As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non earning person, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- must be taken as the income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 2,25,000/-." 6. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Appellants are held entitle for Rs. 2,25,000/- as compensation along with interest awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that interest s @9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. He has relied upon the judgment title Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and others, 2005 ACJ 1441 wherein the Apex Court taking note of the prevailing rate of interest in bank deposits awarded interest @7.5 per cent per annum instead of 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. Now-a-days, the prevailing rate of interest of the Bank are 9% to 9.5%, therefore, interest awarded by the Tribunal needs no interference, which is maintained.Appeal Allowed. *******