JUDGMENT 1. -Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 19.7.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the claimant-respondents for death of their son Anajal Sharma who died in motor accident took place on 26.11.2005. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that although in the claim petition, the age of deceased was mentioned as 7 years but as per finding of the learned Tribunal, he was only 4 years 11 months and 6 days. Therefore, looking to the age of the deceased the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- is excessive, as this court, in the similar cases of deceased children below 5 years of age, has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- only as compensation. He, therefore, contended that the impugned award is liable to be modified by reducing the amount of compensation to that extent. No other submission has been made on behalf of the appellant. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. In the claim application, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 7 years but as per Transfer Certificate issued by the School, his date of birth was 20.12.2000 and as such he was 4 years 11 months and 6 days on the date of accident. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manju Devi and another v. Musafir Paswan and another (2005(1) TAC 609 ) awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- in respect of death of 13 years old boy. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in latest cases in Santosh Rani v. Ranjit Singh & Ors (MACD 2008 (SC) 285 ) has awarded Rs. 2,50,000/- in respect of the death of a boy of 13 years of age. 7. The Tribunal is required to pass an award under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which appears to be just and reasonable. Normally, Second Schedule appended to section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is taken into consideration while calculating the amount of compensation. In the Second Schedule, a notional income has been mentioned as Rs. 7. The Tribunal is required to pass an award under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which appears to be just and reasonable. Normally, Second Schedule appended to section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is taken into consideration while calculating the amount of compensation. In the Second Schedule, a notional income has been mentioned as Rs. 15,000/- p.a. for non-earning member irrespective of his age and multiplier of 15 for the victim below 15 years of age. As per Second Schedule, the amount of compensation in the present case comes to Rs. 2,25,000/- but the Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- only in the present case. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadev Shetty & Anr 2003(2) WLC (SC) Civil 415: (2003) 7 SCC 197 has observed that every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the back ground of just compensation which is the pivotal consideration. 9. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case by the learned Tribunal appears to be just, fair and reasonable and the same cannot be said to be excessive as contended by learned counsel for the appellant so as to interfere with the same. 10. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.Appeal Dismissed *******