Hon'ble RATHOD, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bhargav D. Karia for appellants - original claimants and learned Advocate Mr. GC Mazmudar for respondent No.3 Insurance Company. Respondent NO.1 is served but no appearance is filed by respondent NO.1. Respondent NO.2 has expired during pendency of this appeal. Respondent NO.2 being owner and respondent No.3 insurance company being insurer of insured, representing insured. Claim for purpose of court fees made by claimants in this appeal is Rs.1,43,800.00. Initially, claim made by claimants before claims tribunal at Junagadh was Rs. 2,00,000.00. 2. Present appeal is filed by appellants for enhancement challenging award passed by claims tribunal at Junagadh in claim petition No. 376 of 1991 below Exh. 36 decided on 2.8.1999 wherein claims tribunal has awarded Rs.56,200.00 from all respondents jointly and severally together with running interest @ 12 per cent per annum from date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Karia for appellants submitted that on 27.3.1991, at about 12.30 noon, when deceased Hareshkumar was returning from school on cycle, a truck bearing Registration No. GTJ-5905 driven by opponent NO.1 belonging to opponent NO.2 and insured with opponent NO.3 insurance company came from back side on ST Road and knocked down deceased Hareshkumar, who was studying in Std. 11 at the time of accident. Hareshkumar died on account of injuries sustained in said accident. Therefore, based upon aforesaid facts, claim petition was filed by claimants before claims tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 from opponents jointly and severally. Claims tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.56,200.00 with 12 per cent interest and proportionate costs and, therefore, appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement thereof. Learned Advocate Mr. Karia submitted that claims tribunal has committed gross error in applying law, in not considering facts and evidence on record and in granting compensation of Rs.56,200.00 only to appellant for death of their beloved intelligent son who was studying in 11th Standard. He also submitted that claims tribunal has committed gross error in law and considering evidence produced at Exh. 28, 29 and 30 in coming to conclusion that deceased would have earned only Rs.900.00 per month. Claims tribunal has committed gross error in not assessing reasonable amount of Rs.3000.00 per month as income of deceased Hareshkumar, more particularly when deceased Hareshkumar would have been bread winner for appellants as per evidence at Exh. 40. 28, 29 and 30 in coming to conclusion that deceased would have earned only Rs.900.00 per month. Claims tribunal has committed gross error in not assessing reasonable amount of Rs.3000.00 per month as income of deceased Hareshkumar, more particularly when deceased Hareshkumar would have been bread winner for appellants as per evidence at Exh. 40. He also submitted that claims tribunal has committed error in estimating amount of Rs.900.00 per month as income of deceased Hareshkumar inasmuch as there is no justification for estimating income only at Rs.900.00 as future income of deceased Hareshkumar and granting Rs.300.00 p.m. as dependency benefits while deducting 2/3rd. As per his submission, multiplier of 12 applied by claims tribunal in case of death of minor boy aged 17 years is also too much on its lower side and claims tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 15 as per settled law. He submitted that deceased was a minor aged only 17 years at time of accident. He submitted that at least income of Rs.1000.00 must have to be assessed with application of 15 multiplier. As per his submission, amount of Rs.20,000.00 ought to have been awarded as conventional amount instead of Rs.10,000.00. He submitted that claims tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.3000.00 only towards compensation of general expenses. Claims tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.10000.00 on that count. As per his submission, while calculating at rate of Rs.1000x12x15, loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,80,000.00 and adding Rs.20,000+ Rs.10,000, total amount comes to Rs.2,00,000.00 but claim was restricted by claimants to Rs.2,00,000.00 and same ought to have been awarded by claims tribunal as reasonable and just compensation to claimants and, therefore, award would require interference by this Court to that extent. He also submitted that interest awarded at rate of 12 per cent per annum is also not just and claims tribunal ought to have awarded interest at rate of 15 per cent per annum from date of claim petition till realization. He relied upon decision of apex court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satender & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 324. He also relied upon decision of R.K. Malik & Anr. vs. Kiran Pal & Ors., 2009(8) SCALE 451. He also relied upon recent decision of Karnataka High Court in case of Sesappa Poojary & others vs. P.K. Karunakara and another, 2009 ACJ 2516 . 4. Ltd. vs. Satender & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 324. He also relied upon decision of R.K. Malik & Anr. vs. Kiran Pal & Ors., 2009(8) SCALE 451. He also relied upon recent decision of Karnataka High Court in case of Sesappa Poojary & others vs. P.K. Karunakara and another, 2009 ACJ 2516 . 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.GC Mazmudar appearing for respondent No.3 Insurance Company has submitted while supporting impugned award that claims tribunal has rightly examined matter based on evidence. He submitted that deceased was a minor student being non earning member in family, claimants are not entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 as claimed by claimants. He further submitted that claims tribunal has rightly deducted 2/3rd as deceased was unmarried person and rightly assessed income at Rs.900.00 per month and rightly applied multiplier of 12 considering age of deceased and amount awarded by claims tribunal as a whole is quite just, reasonable and fair amount of compensation and, therefore, same would not call for any interference of this Court. He further submitted that compensation of Rs.10,000.00 awarded by compensation towards conventional amount and Rs.3000.00 towards funeral expenses is also just and proper and interest awarded by claims tribunal at rate of 12 per cent per annum is also just and proper and, therefore, submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Bhargav Karia cannot be accepted and same are required to be rejected while dismissing present appeal. 5. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates. I have also perused impugned award made by claims tribunal. Before claims tribunal, claimants were claiming total compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 because of death of their beloved son aged 17 years in an accident caused by vehicle insured with respondent No.3 herein. Deceased Suresh was returning from school on 27th March, 1991 on his bicycle at about 12.30 p.m. At that time, truck involved in accident driven by opponent no.1 belonging to opponent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3 came from back side from ST Road and knocked down deceased wherein deceased received serious injuries and ultimately he succumbed to those injuries received by him in said accident. Therefore, based upon said facts, claimants were claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 before claims tribunal for death of their intelligent son. At the time of accident, deceased Haresh was studying in Std. 11. Therefore, based upon said facts, claimants were claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 before claims tribunal for death of their intelligent son. At the time of accident, deceased Haresh was studying in Std. 11. According to claimant, due to sad demise of their intelligent son, they have suffered great mental pain and suffering and deceased Haresh would have become their support in their old age and loss suffered by claimants on all these counts cannot be evaluated in terms of money and as such, according to claimants, amount of Rs.56,200.00 awarded to them by claims tribunal for death of their son is not just, reasonable and fair compensation. Deceased Hareshkumar would have proved himself as bread winner and support for the claimants in their old age and would have earned at least Rs.3000.00 per month and, therefore, on that basis, claim was made by claimants in para 14 of claim petition Exh.1. Claim of claimants was mainly contested by opponent no.3 by filing detailed written statement at Exh. 19 wherein they have not admitted alleged crux of entire accident but have set up defence of total negligence on the part of deceased and alternatively, contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased. Over and above that, opponents have not admitted any sort of contributory liability on account of rash and negligent driving of opponent no.1. 6. Before claims tribunal, issues have been framed at Exh. 17 on 15.7.1998. From claimants side, claimant no.1 Kanaiyalal Bhagyachand i.e. father of deceased has given deposition at Exh. 33. No oral and/or documentary evidence was produced by opponents before claims tribunal. Issue no.1 was regarding negligence which was answered by claims tribunal in favour of claimants after examining evidence on record. For deciding issue no.1, claims tribunal considered FIR Exh. 25, certified copy of panchanama of scene of offence Exh. 26 and PM Report of deceased Haresh at Exh. 27 in light of deposition of claimant no.1 Kanaiyalal at Exh. 33 and considering same, observed that said unchallenged facts has proved that on 27.3.1991 deceased was run over by truck no.GTJ 5905 at about 12.30 p.m. On Junagadh ST Road who was coming from school and accordingly held that deceased met with vehicular accidental death on account of rash and negligent driving of opponent no.1 and answered issue no.1 in affirmative. According to my opinion, claims tribunal has rightly given these findings on issue no.1 and no error has been committed by claims tribunal in deciding issue no.1. It is more so when same have not been challenged by any of opponents before this Court. 7. For deciding quantum, claims tribunal considered Exh. 28, 29 and 30 which suggested that deceased Haresh was studying in Swami Lilashah Vidya Mandir, Junagadh in 10th Standard. Claims tribunal also considered that deceased has given typing examination for which certificate is produced at Exh. 29 and mark sheet of SSC Board Exh. 40. Claims tribunal considered claim of claimants as per oral evidence of Kanaiyalal Bhagchand wherein he has claimed that at the most, deceased son could have earned Rs.3000.00 p.m. Considering cross examination of said witness Kanaiyalal, claims tribunal considered that deceased was used to go to school for half day and for remaining half day, he was used to attend grocery shop. Considering his cross examination, claims tribunal also observed that claimants are having one more son and three daughters. Thereafter, assessed lumsum notional monthly income of deceased at Rs.900.00 and then deducted 2/3rd therefrom towards personal expenses of deceased and held that claimants are entitled to dependency benefit to tune of Rs.300.00 p.m. and Rs.3600.00 per year. Thereafter, applied multiplier of 12 considering age of deceased,17 years at the time of accident and based on that, claims tribunal awarded Rs.43,200.00 towards dependency benefit plus Rs.10,000.00 towards conventional amount and Rs.3,000.00 towards funeral expenses and Rs.56,200.00 in all with 12 per cent interest thereon with proportionate costs. 8. According to my opinion, claims tribunal has committed gross error in not appreciating properly evidence of father of deceased Exh. 33. According to my opinion, claims tribunal ought to have appreciated that deceased was earning while learning by attending grocery shop in remaining half day after school hours. That aspect has been totally ignored by claims tribunal while deciding quantum and assessing amount of compensation in favour of claimants. In case of death of a minor, recently, apex court has also decided certain principles for deciding and assessing compensation. In case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satender & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 324, apex court in case of death of child of tender age, apex court laid down relevant factors to be considered when parents are claimants. In case of death of a minor, recently, apex court has also decided certain principles for deciding and assessing compensation. In case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satender & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 324, apex court in case of death of child of tender age, apex court laid down relevant factors to be considered when parents are claimants. Relevant discussion made by apex court in para 7 to 12 is quoted as under: "7. In Mallett vs. McMonagle 1970 (AC) 166, Lord Diplock analysed in detail the uncertainties which arise at various stages in making a rational estimate and practical ways of dealing with them. In Davies vs. Taylor (1974) AC 207, it was held that the Court, in looking at future uncertain events, does not decide whether on balance one thing is more likely to happen than another, but merely puts a value on the chances. A possibility may be ignored if it is slight and remote. Any method of calculation is subordinate to the necessity for compensating the real loss. But a practical approach to the calculation of the damages has been stated by Lord Wright in Davies vs. Powell Duffryn Associated Colleries Ltd. (1942) 1 All ER 657, in the following words: 'The starting point is the amount of wages which the deceased was earning, the ascertainment of which to some extent may depend on the regularity of his employment. Then there is an estimate of how much was required to be spent for his own personal and living expenses. The balance will give a datum or basic figure which will generally be turned into a lump sum by taking a certain number of years' purchase." 8. In State of Haryana and Anr. vs. Jasbir Kaur and Ors. ( 2003(7) SCC 484 ) it was held as under: 2003 AIR SCW 4198 "7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be "just and reasonable". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be 'just" compensation 1998 AIR SCW 3105 is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of 'just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression 'just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello vs. Maharashtra SRTC ( 1999(1) SCC 90 ) 9. There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendour of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape measure. The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents. 10. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents. 10. In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child's lifetime. But this will not necessarily bar the parent's claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim provided that the parents' establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. vs. Jenkins (1913) AC 1, and Lord Atkinson said thus: ".....all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact -there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can I think, be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them." (See Lata Wadhwa and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. ( 2001(8) SCC 197 ). 11. This Court in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra) while computing compensation made distinction between deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. 12. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, 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 basis. 12. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, 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 basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation." 9. In case of R.K. Malik & Anr. vs. Kiran Pal & Ors., 2009(8) SCALE 451, wherein death of children when school bus drowned in Yamuna river was involved. Apex court has considered reasonable amount of compensation in respect of dependents of children between age group of 10 to 15, Rs.1,55,000.00 and for age group of 15 to 18, Rs.1,65,000.00 and thereafter, apex court has awarded Rs.75000.00 as future prospects while holding that High Court was not justified in failing to consider future prospects of children. Relevant discussion made in para 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,31 and 34 is reproduced as under: "10. Undoubtedly, the compensation in law is paid to restore the person,who has suffered damage or loss in the same position, if the tortuous act or the breach of contract had not been committed. The law requires that the party suffering should be put in the same position, if the contract had been performed or the wrong had not been committed. The law in all such matters requires payment of adequate, reasonable and just monetary compensation. 11. In cases of motor accidents the endeavour is to put the dependents/claimants in the pre-accidental position. Compensation in cases of motor accidents, as in other matters, is paid for reparation of damages. The damages so awarded should be adequate sum of money that would put the party, who has suffered, in the same position if he had not suffered on account of the wrong. Compensation is therefore required to be paid for prospective pecuniary loss i.e. future loss of income/dependency suffered on account of the wrongful act. 12. However, no amount of compensation can restore the lost limb or the experience of pain and suffering due to loss of life. Compensation is therefore required to be paid for prospective pecuniary loss i.e. future loss of income/dependency suffered on account of the wrongful act. 12. However, no amount of compensation can restore the lost limb or the experience of pain and suffering due to loss of life. Loss of a child, life or a limb can never be eliminated or ameliorated completely. To put it simply-pecuniary damages cannot replace a human life or limb lost. Therefore, in addition to the pecuniary losses, the law recognises that payment should also be made for non pecuniary losses on account of, loss of happiness, pain, suffering and expectancy of life etc. The Act provides for payment of "just compensation" vide section 166 and 168. It is left to the courts to decide what would be "just compensation" in facts of a case. 13. For calculating pecuniary loss or loss of dependency, this Court has repeatedly held that it is the multiplier method which should be applied. The said method is based upon the principle that the claimant must be paid a capital sum, which would yield sufficient interest to provide material benefits of the same standard and duration as the deceased would have provided for the dependents, if the deceased had lived and earned. The multiplier method is based upon the assessment that yearly loss of dependency should be equal to interest that could be earned in normal course on the capital sum invested. The capital sum would be the compensation for loss of dependency or the pecuniary loss suffered by the dependents. Needless to say, uniform application of the multiplier method ensures consistency and certainty and prevents different amounts being awarded in different cases. 14. For calculating the yearly loss of dependency the starting point is the wages being earned by the deceased, less his personal and living expenses. This provides a basic figure. Thereafter, effect is given to the future prospects of the deceased, inflation and general price rise that erodes value and the purchasing power of money.To the multiplicand so calculated, multiplier is to be applied. The multiplier is decided and determined on the basis of length of dependency, which must be estimated. This has to be necessarily discounted for contingencies and uncertainties. The multiplier is decided and determined on the basis of length of dependency, which must be estimated. This has to be necessarily discounted for contingencies and uncertainties. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of this Court in the case of Sarla Dixit vs. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179 ; Managing Director TNSTC Ltd. vs. K. T. Bindu, (2005) 8 SCC 473 ; T. N. State Transport Corp. Ltd. vs. S. Rajapriya, (2005) 6 SCC 236 ; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Patrica Jean Mahajan (2002) 6 SCC 281 . 15. The real problem that arises in the cases of death of children is that they are not earning at the time of the accident. In most of the cases they were still studying and not working. However, under no stretch of imagination it can be said that the parents, who are appellants herein, have not suffered any pecuniary loss. In fact, Loss of dependency by its very nature is awarded for prospective or future loss. In this context, Lord Atkinson aptly observed in Taff Vale Rly. Co. vs. Jenkins, (1911-13) All England Reporter 160 as follows: "In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child's lifetime. But this will not necessarily bar the parents' claim and prospective loss will found a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived." 16. Then, how does one calculate pecuniary compensation for loss of future earnings and loss of dependency of the parents, grand parents etc. in the case of non-working student? Under the Second Schedule of the Act in case of a non earning person, his income is notionally estimated at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The Second Schedule is applicable to claim petitions filed under Section 163 A of the Act. The Second Schedule provides for the multiplier to be applied in cases where the age of the victim was less than 15 years and between 15 years but not exceeding 20 years. Even when compensation is payable under Section 166 read with 168 of the Act, deviation from the structured formula as provided in the Second Schedule is not ordinarily permissible, except in exceptional cases. Even when compensation is payable under Section 166 read with 168 of the Act, deviation from the structured formula as provided in the Second Schedule is not ordinarily permissible, except in exceptional cases. (see Abati Bezbaruah v.Dy.Director General, Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148 ); United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan, (2002) 6 SCC 281 and UP State Road Transport Corp. vs. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 ). 31. A forceful submission has been made by the learned counsels appearing for the claimants-appellants that both the Tribunal as well as the High Court failed to consider the claims of the appellants with regard to the future prospects of the children. It has been submitted that the evidence with regard to the same has been ignored by the Courts below. On perusal of the evidence on record, we find merit in such submission that the Courts below have overlooked that aspect of the matter while granting compensation. It is well settled legal principle that in addition to awarding compensation for pecuniary losses, compensation must also be granted with regard to the future prospects of the children. It is incumbent upon the Courts to consider the said aspect while awarding compensation. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the decisions rendered by this Court in General Manager, Kerala S. R. T. C. vs. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 ; Sarla Dixit vs. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179 ; and Lata Wadhwa case (supra). 34. So far as the pecuniary damage is concerned we are of the considered view both the Tribunal as well as the High Court has awarded the compensation on the basis of Second Schedule and relevant multiplier under the Act. However, we may notice here that as far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the Tribunal does not award any compensation under the head of non-pecuniary damages. However, in appeal the High Court has elaborately discussed this aspect of the matter and has awarded non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 75,000. Needless to say, pecuniary damages seeks to compensate those losses which can be translated into money terms like loss of earnings, actual and prospective earning and other out of pocket expenses. In contrast, non-pecuniary damages include such immeasurable elements as pain and suffering and loss of amenity and enjoyment of life. 75,000. Needless to say, pecuniary damages seeks to compensate those losses which can be translated into money terms like loss of earnings, actual and prospective earning and other out of pocket expenses. In contrast, non-pecuniary damages include such immeasurable elements as pain and suffering and loss of amenity and enjoyment of life. In this context, it becomes duty of the court to award just compensation for non-pecuniary loss. As already noted it is difficult to quantify the non-pecuniary compensation, nevertheless, the endeavour of the Court must be to provide a just, fair and reasonable amount as compensation keeping in view all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration. We have noticed that the High Court in present case has enhanced the compensation in this category by Rs. 75, 000/- in all connected appeals. We do not find any infirmity in that regard." 10. Recently, in case of Sesappa Poojary & others vs. P.K. Karunakara and another, 2009 ACJ 2516 , in case of death of children aged 5,13 and 16 wherein claimants were parents, Division Bench of Karnataka High Court observed as under in para 10,13 and 14: "10. More recently, in Manju Devi vs. Musafir Paswan, 2005 ACJ 99 (SC), which was a case of a 13 years old boy, who was killed in an accident in the year 1998, the Tribunal had awarded a fixed sum of Rs.90,000 which it had held to be just, proper and reasonable. On an appeal for enhancement, the High Court had dismissed the same. The apex court in enhancing the compensation held as follows: '(2) In the case of UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), 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. In view of this authority, it will have to be held that the award of compensation had to be made by the multiplier method. (3) As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a boy of 13 years, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. In view of this authority, it will have to be held that the award of compensation had to be made by the multiplier method. (3) As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a boy of 13 years, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non earning person, a sum of Rs.15000/- must be taken as the income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs.2,25,000. (4) We accordingly modify the award to be in a sum of Rs.2,25,000 with interest as awarded. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.' 13. This Court in S. Sana Ulla vs. A.R. Shivashankar 2008 ACJ 2543 (Karnataka) was dealing with a case involving the death of a 13 years old boy. The appellants were the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.1,51,500 with 8 per cent interest. On a comparative analysis of the compensation awarded to children between 10 and 15 years by the various High Courts and by Apex Court, in the case of Manju Devi vs. Musafir Paswan, 2005 ACJ 99 (SC) held that the various High Courts, following the judgment in Manju Devi's case (supra) have consistently awarded Rs.2,25,000.00 for the death of children aged 10 and 15 years and that it would be appropriate if compensation is enhanced to Rs.2,25,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum. 14. On a study of the above cited cases, the following principles emerge: (a) The amount of compensation recoverable in respect of death of a minor by the claimants in a petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 depends upon the particular facts and circumstances - there can be no ceiling places on the amount recoverable. (b) Parents are entitled to recover as compensation the present cash value of the prospective service of the deceased minor child and reasonable compensation for the loss of present services (see (j) below). (c) Compensation payable is towards loss of pecuniary benefits reasonably expected after the child attains majority. Dependency can be estimated by computing the annual contribution which the child would have made from the date of his probable earning, except as indicated in (j) below. (c) Compensation payable is towards loss of pecuniary benefits reasonably expected after the child attains majority. Dependency can be estimated by computing the annual contribution which the child would have made from the date of his probable earning, except as indicated in (j) below. (d) Reasonable probability as regards the minor child growing into adulthood and being more successful than the present (as it ought to be the expectation of evlery parent) and correspondingly working towards higher levels of income may be accepted if supported by material to indicate such a possibility with reasonable certainty. The older the child, less would be left to chance, as there is bound to be material point to a strong possibility of the deceased child becoming a successful adult. (e) As dependency lasts only for the lifetime of the parents, the multiplier to be applied is the one appropriate to the age of the younger of the parents. (f) Dependency need not be deemed to cease on the marriage of a minor, though it may be reduced, having regard to the traditions and practices in this country. (g) Dependency may vary given the social and economic condition of the family of the deceased. For example, an affluent parent is not likely to depend on the earnings of his child as would a less well to do parent. (h) Deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased cannot be uniformly taken at one third or one half, this will depend on the facts of the case. (i) Nominal compensation has been awarded in the past in cases involving children above 5 years and below 10 years and so also in the case of children below 5 years. This need not be a rule for all time to come. With improved and assured basic health, educational and other needs becoming available to the general populace in greater numbers, by the year if not by the day, it is possible to award higher amounts of compensation even in respect of such cases and in view of the progressive increase in longevity, denial of compensation on the basis of morality rates amongst very young children in the past decades cannot be sustained. (j) There are several decided cases where it has been observed that compensation cannot be granted to the parents in the event of death, due to accidents, of very young children for the reason that it would be many years before they actually become earning members. While on the other hand, the parents would in fact require to continue to spend money and effort for several years in nurturing the child to become a successful adult. But it has never been considered, in those decided cases, that money and effort has already been expended on the children even upto the date of death, which is lost. It is also not taken into consideration that even a very young child is capable of running errands and attending the chores for the parents even at a tender age. The loss of such services cannot be undermined. The loss in this regard needs to be compensated reasonably and well, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case." 11. In case of Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, 2001, ACJ, 1735 (SC), certain guildelines have been offered as to quantum of compensation that could be awarded in cases involving death of minors. In that matter, court having found that the question of grant of compensation must be examined by a person having expertise, had requested Mr. Justice YV Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India to examine the matter and determine compensation payable by an order dated 15.12.1993. Such report was submitted by Mr. YV Chandrachud in November, 2000 quantifying compensation payable. On the basis of report, apex court has granted compensation. While dealing with compensation payable to parents of deceased children, apex court has held in respect of children between age group of 10 and 15 years, they are all students of Class VII to Class X and are children of employees of TISCO. TISCO itself has a tradition that every employee can get one of children employed in TISCO. Having regard to these facts in said case, according to supreme court, contribution of Rs.12000.00 p.a. was on lower side and and annual contribution should be Rs.24000.00 and instead of multiplier of 11, appropriate multiplier would be 15. TISCO itself has a tradition that every employee can get one of children employed in TISCO. Having regard to these facts in said case, according to supreme court, contribution of Rs.12000.00 p.a. was on lower side and and annual contribution should be Rs.24000.00 and instead of multiplier of 11, appropriate multiplier would be 15. So, in all, compensation for age group of children of age group of 10 to 15 years was Rs.4,10,000 for each of claimant of deceased of deceased children in that case was awarded by apex court. 12. In Priya Vasant Kalgutkar vs Murad Shaikh & Ors.,2009(10) SCALE page 345, apex court observed as under: "9. We may, however, notice that in Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar ( (2001) 8 SCC 197 ), this Court held : "11. So far as the award of compensation in case of children is concerned, Shri Justice Chandrachud has divided them into two groups, the first group between the age group of 5 to 10 years and the second group between the age group of 10 to 15 years. In case of children between the age group of 5 to 10 years, a uniform sum of Rs.50,000 has been held to be payable by way of compensation, to which the conventional figure of Rs.25,000 has been added and as such to the heirs of the 14 children, a consolidated sum of Rs.75,000 each, has been awarded. So far as the children in the age group of 10 to 15 years, there are 10 such children who died on the fateful day and having found their contribution to the family at Rs .12,000 per annum, 11 multiplier has been applied, particularly, depending upon the age of the father and then the conventional compensation of Rs.25,000 has been added to each case and consequently, the heirs of each of the deceased above 10 years of age, have been granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,57,000 each. In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child's lifetime. But this will not necessarily bar the parents' claim and prospective loss will found a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child's lifetime. But this will not necessarily bar the parents' claim and prospective loss will found a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. vs. Jenkins and Lord Atkinson said thus: "... all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact - there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first, that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can, I think, be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them." At the same time, it must be held that a mere speculative possibility of benefit is not sufficient. Question whether there exists a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage is always a mixed question of fact and law. There are several decided cases on this point, providing the guidelines for determination of compensation in such cases but we do not think it necessary for us to advert, as the claimants had not adduced any materials on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefits, which the parents expected. In case of a bright and healthy boy, his performances in the school, it would be easier for the authority to arrive at the compensation amount, which may be different from another sickly, unhealthy, rickety child and bad student, but as has been stated earlier, not an iota of material was produced before Shri Justice Chandrachud to enable him to arrive at a just compensation in such cases and, therefore, he has determined the same on an approximation. Mr. Mr. Nariman, appearing for TISCO on his own, submitted that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be doubled, as in his view also, the determination made is grossly inadequate. Loss of a child to the parents is irrecoupable, and no amount of money could compensate the parents. Having regard to the environment from which these children were brought, their parents being reasonably well-placed officials of Tata Iron and Steel Company, and on considering the submission of Mr. Nariman, we would direct that the compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other words, it should be Rs.1.5 lakhs, to which the conventional figure of Rs.50,000 should be added and thus the total amount in each case would be Rs.2.00 lakhs. So far as the children between the age group of 10 to 15 years, they are all students of Class VI to Class X and are children of employees of TISCO. TISCO itself has a tradition that every employee can get one of his children employed in the Company. Having regard to these facts, in their case, the contribution of Rs.12,000 per annum appears to us to be on the lower side and in our considered opinion, the contribution should be Rs.24,000 and instead of 11 multiplier, the appropriate multiplier would be 15. Therefore, the compensation, so calculated on the aforesaid basis should be worked out to Rs.3.60 lakhs, to which an additional sum of Rs.50,000 has to be added, thus making the total amount payable at Rs.4.10 lakhs for each of the claimants of the aforesaid deceased children." Even by that standard, the amount of compensation granted by the High Court appears to be adequate in absence of any evidence having brought on record as to the actual damages." 13. In light of aforesaid back ground, considering various decisions of apex court as well as Karnataka High Court as referred to above, and also keeping in mind facts involved in present case where there is evidence of claimant no.1 Kanaiyalal at Exh. 33 that his son who was studying in Std. 11 has cleared typing examination as per certificate Exh. 29 and SSC Board examination as per certificate Exh. 33 that his son who was studying in Std. 11 has cleared typing examination as per certificate Exh. 29 and SSC Board examination as per certificate Exh. 40 and while studying and learning, he was also attending grocery shop after school hours, according to my opinion, claims tribunal is not justified in assessing income of deceased at Rs.900.00 only as against claim of claimants for Rs.3000.00 notional income per month. For that, no reasons whatsoever has been given by claims tribunal. Merely because claimants are having one more son and three daughters, that cannot be made a ground for denying just and reasonable compensation to claimants who have lost their young intelligent son who was studying in Std. 11 and has cleared typing examination and was also attending grocery shop after school hours. According to my opinion, claims tribunal ought to have kept in mind hard reality that claimants have lost their beloved son who was studying in Std.11 and has cleared Std. 10 Examination as well as Typing Examination which justifies that their son was brilliant who died due to accident. Claims tribunal has deducted 2/3rd amount towards personal expenditure of deceased. For that also, claims tribunal has not given any reason and looking to age of 17 years of deceased, on what basis, multiplier of only 12 is applied, for that also, no reason has been assigned by claims tribunal. According to my opinion, approach of claims tribunal is half hearted one without application of mind and without giving reasons and applying rational, he just assessed income ignoring evidence on record and then deducted 2/3rd therefrom, on what principles, for that, no discussion is made and for applying multiplier of 12 for a boy aged 17 years also, no reason is given, therefore, according to my opinion, claims tribunal has not applied mind, on the contrary, claims tribunal has hurriedly, without applying mind and principles applicable in case of death of child, how much amount has to be awarded as compensation to parents, straightway amount has been fixed for dependency at Rs.43,200.00 only. Claims tribunal has also ignored age of parents of deceased while determining multiplier of deceased. Appellant NO.1 Kanaiyalal is aged 45 and Radhaben Kanaiyalal, mother is 40 years and considering age of appellants original claimants at the time of accident, multiplier of 12 applied by claims tribunal is too much on its lower side. 14. Claims tribunal has also ignored age of parents of deceased while determining multiplier of deceased. Appellant NO.1 Kanaiyalal is aged 45 and Radhaben Kanaiyalal, mother is 40 years and considering age of appellants original claimants at the time of accident, multiplier of 12 applied by claims tribunal is too much on its lower side. 14. In view of this back ground, according to my opinion, there is basic error on part of claims tribunal in deciding quantum of compensation payable to claimants and multiplier to be applied in such case. Such error committed by claims tribunal is apparent on face of record which has rendered award of compensation as unjust and unfair and contrary to settled principles of law. Claims tribunal has not justified this compensation which has been worked out by him with application of mind because no reason has been given by claims tribunal in support of its conclusions. Future prospects of deceased son of claimants has also not been taken into consideration by claims tribunal while working out compensation payable to claimants. 15. Considering evidence on record, income of Rs.3000.00 has been suggested by claimants. However, instead of going to suggestion made by claimants, after amendment, Motor Vehicles Act, 1994, IInd Schedule has come into existence and if guidance is taken therefrom, read with section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, then, an income of Rs.15000.00 per year for non earning member as suggested in IInd Schedule can be taken as income of deceased Hareshkumar and out of that, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of deceased, annual dependency benefit would come to Rs.10,000.00. Looking to age of parents, multiplier of 15 is required to be applied instead of 12 as has been applied by claims tribunal and applying multiplier of 15, dependency benefit would come to Rs.1,50,000.00. Thereafter, considering recent decision of apex court in case of R.K. Malik as referred to above, an amount of Rs.75000.00 is required to be awarded for future prospects of deceased. According to my opinion, amount of Rs.10,000.00 awarded by claims tribunal as conventional charges is on lower charges and it would be just and reasonable if an amount of Rs.20,000.00 is awarded on that head and Rs.5,000.00 as funeral expenses instead of Rs.3,000.00 as has been awarded. Thus, according to my opinion, claimants are entitled for amount of compensation as under on different heads : Rs. 1,50,000.00 Dependency benefits. Rs. Thus, according to my opinion, claimants are entitled for amount of compensation as under on different heads : Rs. 1,50,000.00 Dependency benefits. Rs. 0,75,000.00 Towards future prospects Rs. 0,20,000.00 Towards Conventional amount Rs. 0,05,000.00 Towards funeral expenses. Rs. 2,50,000.00 Total compensation. 16. Thus, appellants are entitled for total amount of compensation of Rs.2,50,000.00 which is almost coming at par with decision which has been referred to and relied upon by this court. Claimants were claiming total amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 before claims tribunal and excluding amount awarded by claims tribunal of Rs. 56,200.00, claimants are seeking enhancement of Rs.1,43,800.00 and as per calculation made by this court, claimants are entitled for Rs.2,50,000.00 as total compensation payable to appellants as just and reasonable compensation as per section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act. This Court being appellate court, can exercise appellate powers for awarding just and reasonable compensation under Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC for doing complete justice to claimants as decided by Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Oritntal Insurance CO. Ltd. vs. Akkayamma and others, 2009 ACJ 2635. Relevant observations made by Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in para 13,14 and 15 are reproduced as under: "13. A learned single judge of this court in the case of Kantha-mma vs. Nanjunda Deoaru, ILR 1998 Kar 4271, has followed the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases. A Division Bench of this court in the case of Patel Chandrappa vs. Hanumanthappa, 1990 (3) KLJ 264, has granted reliefs to certain parties who have not come up in appeal against the judgment of the trial court. The Division Bench in this reported decision has observed that having regard to the provisions contained in rule 33 of Order 41 of Civil Procedure Code, it is the duty of the court to grant relief to them if in law they are entitled to a share in the suit schedule property. 14. Again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking vs. Basanti Devi, AIR 2000 SC 43 , has considered the powers of appellate court under Order 41, rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code. 14. Again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking vs. Basanti Devi, AIR 2000 SC 43 , has considered the powers of appellate court under Order 41, rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code. Relevant observations are found in paras 18 and 19 which read thus: "(18) This provisions was explained by this court in Mahant Dhangir vs. Madan Mohan, AIR 1988 SC 54 , in the following words: "The sweep of the power under rule 33 is wide enough to determine any question not only between the appellant and respondent, but also between respondent and co-respondent. The appellate court could pass any decree or order, which ought to have been passed in te circumstances of the case. The appellate court could also pass such other decree or order as the case may require. The words 'as the case may require' used in rule 33 of Order 41 have been put in wide terms to enable the appellate court to pass any order or decree to meet the ends of justice. What then should be the constraint? We do not find many. We are not giving any liberal interpretation. The rule itself is is liberal enough. The only constraints that we should see, may be these: That the parties before the appellate court. The question raised must properly arise out of the judgment of the lower court. If these two requirements are there, the appellate court could consider any objection against any part of the judgment or decree of the lower court. It may be urged by any party to the appeal. It is true that the power of the appellate court under rule 33 is discretionary. But it is a proper exercise of judicial discretion to determine all questions urged in order to render complete justice between the parties. The court should not refuse to exercise that discretion on mere technicalities. (19) Conditions as laid in provisions of Order 41, Rule 33 are satisfied in the present case. When circumstances exist which necessitate the exercise of discretion conferred by Rule 33, the court cannot be found wanting when it comes to exercise its powers." 15. The court should not refuse to exercise that discretion on mere technicalities. (19) Conditions as laid in provisions of Order 41, Rule 33 are satisfied in the present case. When circumstances exist which necessitate the exercise of discretion conferred by Rule 33, the court cannot be found wanting when it comes to exercise its powers." 15. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this court in the decisions referred to supra, if it is clear from the judgment of the Tribunal that the Tribunal has committed grave error while computing loss of dependency by applying improper method and when it is apparently noticed that the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate having regard to the legal evidence placed on record by the claimants, in order to do complete justice, this court should exercise discretionary power under Order 41, Rule 33 Civil Procedure Code, is warranted, as the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate. As noticed above, Exh. P8 is the salary certificate which shows that the deceased was earning a total salary of Rs. 9,913/- p.m. The contents of Exh. P8 is disputed. Exh. P8 is issued by a public undertaking, namely, BEL. Therefore, there is no difficulty in placing reliance on Exh.P8 for reckoning monthly income of the deceased just prior to his death. It is well settled law that the salary drawn by the deceased as on the date of his death should be taken into consideration for assessing the loss of dependency and except statutory deductions for income tax and professional, tax, no other deductions should be allowed, from the gross salary. If gross salary of Rs.9,913/- as shown in Exh.P8 is taken as monthly salary of the deceased, the annual salary works out to Rs.1,18,956. As the deceased had 12 more years of service, it is reasonable to expect that his salary would not have been the same till the date of superannuation. Therefore, keeping in mind the hike in salary during the rest of the period of service and no additional weightage is given on this count while computing the gross income, no deduction towards income tax or professional tax is warranted. Therefore, annual gross salary income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs. 1,18,956. If 1/3rd of this amount is deducted towards his personal expenses, the balance 2/3rd works out to Rs.79,304/-. Therefore, annual gross salary income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs. 1,18,956. If 1/3rd of this amount is deducted towards his personal expenses, the balance 2/3rd works out to Rs.79,304/-. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 12. Thus, total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 9,51,648/-. The Tribunal ought to have awarded this amount under the head of loss of dependency. In addition to this, the claimants are entitled for compensation under conventional heads. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- under conventional heads. We confirm the said award." 17. Accordingly this court being appellate court, found while examining award made by claims tribunal that claims tribunal has committed gross error while computing loss of dependency by applying improper method and decided quantum and application of multiplier and has awarded compensation which is unjust and improper having regard to legal evidence placed on record by claimants, in order to do complete justice, this court should exercise discretionary powers under Order 41, Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure for doing complete justice to claimants and enhance reasonable amount of compensation which is found to be just and proper by appellate court, therefore, knowing fully well that claimants claimed Rs.2,00,000.00 before claims tribunal and before this court, claimants are claiming Rs.1,43,800.00, even though, this court has found that compensation awarded by claims tribunal is inadequate and unjust having regard to legal evidence placed on record by claimants and, therefore, awarding total amount of compensation of Rs.2,50,000.00 to claimants for which they are entitled as a whole. Therefore, while deducting Rs.56,200.00 which has been awarded by claims tribunal, claimants are entitled for remaining amount of compensation of Rs.1,93,800.00 with 12 per cent interest as awarded by claims tribunal from date of claim petition till realization thereof. According to my opinion, claims tribunal was right in awarding interest at rate of 12 per cent as prevailing at relevant time and that part of award does not call for any interference. 18. According to my opinion, claims tribunal was right in awarding interest at rate of 12 per cent as prevailing at relevant time and that part of award does not call for any interference. 18. Accordingly, first appeal filed by appellants claimants is allowed with a direction to respondents including insurance company to deposit remaining amount of compensation of Rs.1,93,800.00 (Rupees one lac ninety three thousand eight hundred only) with interest thereon at rate of 12 per cent per annum from date of filing of claim petition till date of deposit, before claims tribunal concerned within two months from date of receipt of copy of this order. After realizing said amount, claims tribunal is directed to pay total amount or full amount to appellant no.1 Kanaiyalal Bhagyachand by way of an account payee cheque after proper verification without any delay. Award made by claims tribunal stands modified accordingly to extent indicated hereinabove with no order as to costs.