JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal of the Insurance Company against the award dated 9.11.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in motor accident claim no. 1768/99. 2. One Makhan Lal Yadav died on account of injuries sustained in an accident which occurred on 17.5.99 involving a Maruti van bearing no. MP07 H 6636. The claimants respondents nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Makhan Lal Yadav. 3. Learned Tribunal after assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month and after deducting ⅓ of it on account of personal expenses of the deceased assessed the dependency at Rs. 32,000/- per year and after adopting a multiplier of 13 and after adding Rs. 22,000/- on various counts passed a total award of Rs. 4,38,000/-. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in arriving at the conclusion that the deceased Makhan Lal Yadav was 18 years old at the time of his death because his age recorded in his postmortem report Ex.4 is 15 years. He has also submitted that the deceased was not an earning member of the family and the Tribunal has committed an error by holding that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month by selling milk. . 5. Learned counsel for the respondents nos. 1 and 2 has supported the award passed by learned Tribunal. 6. "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable on the facts and circumstances of the case to make good the loss suffered by the claimants as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. 7. There is no documentary evidence with regard to the age of the deceased Makhan Lal Yadav. The claimant respondent no. 1 Jhuntha Ram AW. 1 has stated that his son Makhan Lal Yadav was 18 years old. But in the postmortem report Ex. 4 the age of the deceased Makhan Lal Yadav has been stated to be 15 years. 7. There is no documentary evidence with regard to the age of the deceased Makhan Lal Yadav. The claimant respondent no. 1 Jhuntha Ram AW. 1 has stated that his son Makhan Lal Yadav was 18 years old. But in the postmortem report Ex. 4 the age of the deceased Makhan Lal Yadav has been stated to be 15 years. I am of the opinion that learned Tribunal has committed an error by holding that the deceased Makhan Lal Yadav was 18 years old solely on the basis of oral testimony of the claimant respondent no. 1 Jhuntha Ram AW.1. Postmortem report Ex. 4 is a document exhibited and proved by the claimants and, therefore, on the basis of postmortem report Ex.4 it is clearly established that the deceased Makhan Lal Yadav was about 15 years old at the time of his death. 8. As regards the income the claimant respondent no.1 Jhuntha Ram AW.1 has stated that his son Makhan Lal Yadav was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month by selling milk. In cross-examination, however, he states : " esjs ikl dksbZ HkSal ugha gSA esjs yM+ds ds ikl Hkh dksbZ HkSal ugha FkhA ------------ og fdlls nw/k [kjhnrk Fkk eq>s ugha irk rFkk fdl dkWyksuh esa fdl&fdl IykV esa nw/k lIykbZ djrk Fkk ;g eSa ugha crk ldrkA " 9. In the absence of any other evidence, it is not proved by the uncorroborated testimony of the claimant respondent no. 1 Jhuntha Ram A.W. 1 that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month by selling milk or that he was at all earning any amount. Learned Tribunal has also committed an error by deducting only ⅓ of the income on account of personal expenses of the deceased whereas 1/2 of the income should have been deducted as the deceased was unmarried and it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. 10. In cases of young children neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated oasis. mis is me case tot death of an illiterate boy of 15 years of age and, therefore, on the basis of 2008 (1) WLC (Raj.) 589 instead of calculating the dependency by applying multiplier method, I find Rs. mis is me case tot death of an illiterate boy of 15 years of age and, therefore, on the basis of 2008 (1) WLC (Raj.) 589 instead of calculating the dependency by applying multiplier method, I find Rs. 2,25,000/- as just and reasonable compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till payment. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed as indicated above and the compensation amount is reduced from Rs. 4,38,000/- to Rs. 2,25,000/-. The claimants respondents will be entitled to get interest on the aforementioned amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till payment. Learned Tribunal will apportion the amount among the claimants and will pass necessary orders regarding payment/fixed deposit thereof. The impugned award stands modified as above. No order as to costs.Appeal allowed as above. *******