Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—Learned counsel submits that the appellant No.1 Brij Mohan has expired, therefore, his name be deleted. He has left only appellant No.2 as the legal representative, therefore, there is no need for substitution of legal representatives. 2. This appeal has been filed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur decreeing the claim for compensation on account of death of only daughter, aged 13 years and 3 months, to the tune of Rs.47,500/-, which includes Rs.10,000/- for the pain and agony suffered by the deceased on account of hospitalisation for 14 days since the date of accident till death, Rs.15,000/- for pain and agony suffered by the parents, the claimants. Thus, a total sum of Rs.14,400/- has been awarded as compensation on account of death. The appeal has been filed for enhancement. 3. From a reading of the findings recorded in para 14, I am constrained to observe that the whole approach of the learned Judge is nothing less than perverse, when he took into consideration the fact that the deceased was a child, who could not be expected to earn as claimed, and after six years, she would have been married, and thus, dependency has been assessed for six years only. Then expenses for cremation have not been awarded on the ground, that death is inevitable, one way or the other, and in any case, cremation has to be performed, same way expenses incurred on nutritional diet have not been awarded on the ground that only carbon copies of bills have been produced. 4. I may refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 15.5.2009 in R.K. Malik vs. Kiran Pal rendered in Civil Appeals No.3609/09 and 3608/09, wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court by referring to judgment in Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 and about half a dozen earlier judgments laid down the principles, as to how does one calculate pecuniary compensation for the loss of future earnings and loss of dependency of parents, grandparents etc. in case of non earning student. Hon’ble the Supreme Court referred to and relied upon the Second Schedule appended to the Act, where-under notional income is estimated at Rs.15,000/- per annum and provides for the multiplier to be applied. in case of non earning student. Hon’ble the Supreme Court referred to and relied upon the Second Schedule appended to the Act, where-under notional income is estimated at Rs.15,000/- per annum and provides for the multiplier to be applied. Then regarding assessment of non-pecuniary compensation on loss of human life, loss of company, companionship, happiness, pain and suffering and loss of expectation of life etc. also principles have been laid down and also proceeded to observe that non-pecuniary compensation is extremely difficult to be quantified, as, to a great extent it is based upon the sentiments and emotions, but the same could not be a ground for non-payment of any amount whatever, by stating that it is difficult to quantify and pinpoint the exact amount payable with mathematical accuracy. It was also held that human life cannot be measured only in terms of loss of earnings or monitory loss alone. There are emotional attachments involved, and loss of a child can have a devastating effect on the family, which can be easily visualized and understood. It was held that perhaps the only mechanism, known to law, in this kind of situation is, to compensate a person, who has suffered non-pecuniary loss or damage as a consequence of wrong done to him by way of damages/monitory compensation. In my view, it would have been better, if the learned Judge would have kept himself abreast with the correct legal position. 5. In such circumstances, the award cannot be sustained. As such, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside, and the matter is sent back to the learned Tribunal, for making appropriate assessment of the compensation, and passing decree for the appropriate amount. Since the matter is already very old, the learned Tribunal should decide the matter utmost expeditiously.