JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of Yad Ram, aged about 12 years, who died in a motoraccident took place on 27th March, 2005, being 5 aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 15th May, 2007, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- in their favour. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that although the 1o amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable but the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration that deceased Yad Ram was the only son of their parents, therefore, looking to this special circumstance of the case, some more amount of compensation should have been awarded. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. So far as submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased Yad Ram was the only son of appellants No.1 and 2 is concerned, it is relevant to mention that there are four more children of them, who are appellants No.3 to 6. They may be daughters but law does not permit any discrimination in between son and daughter. 6. The deceased Yad Ram was 12 years of age and a non-earning member. The Tribunal assessed his notional annual income as Rs.15,000/- as prescribed in the Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and, as per the Second Schedule itself, applied the multiplier of 15 and thus awarded total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- in the 1 case. The Tribunal has further awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 23rd August, 2005. 7. The learned Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation in favour of the claimants as per the notional annual income and applied the multiplier as mentioned in the Second Schedule, therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned Award so as to interfere with the same. The learned Tribunal is required to pass an Award under Section 168 of the Act of 1988 which appears to be just and reasonable. The learned Tribunal is required to pass an Award under Section 168 of the Act of 1988 which appears to be just and reasonable. So far as the present case is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation as per the Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 itself and I do not find any illegality in it. 8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same, is accordingly dismissed in limine.Appeal Dismissed. *******