JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Perused the record made available by the parties. 3. This miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the award dated 8th February 2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur in claim case No.503/2000. 4. The claim arises on account of the death of a minor girl viz., Anchi and has been filed by the parents for compensation. 5. As per the findings, the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was seven-years. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has referred two judgments; one of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manju Devi & Anr. v. Musafir Paswan & Anr., reported in 2005 RAR 105 (SC) and another judgment of this Court reported in 2008 RAR 386, Malti (Smt.) & Ors. v. M.K. Vasu & Ors. . 7. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has contended that on the basis of Manju Devi's case (supra) the compensation deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 2,25,000/- as awarded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. However, I find that in the instant case, this Court in Malti (Smt.)'s case (supra) has taken into consideration the entire case law including Manju Devi's case (supra) and has laid down the structure formula providing for compensation in the case of non-earning minors for the different age groups. 9. As per Para No.11 of the report, taking into consideration the age of the deceased viz., Anchi, who was of seven-years, the present case would fall under Para No.11(ii) i.e. the claimants of victim child in the age group of 5 to 10 years for whom the compensation has been assessed as Rs. 1,80,000/- 10. Suffice it to say in Para 10 the learned Single Judge has taken into account the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manju Devi's case (supra) where the minor was aged 13 years was put under the category (iii) in Malti (Smt.)'s case of children in the age group of 10 to 15 years for whom compensation of Rs. 2.25 lacs has been prescribed. As such the judgment of Manju Devi's case (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is distinguishable. 11. In the facts and circumstances, this miscellaneous appeal is allowed. 12. 2.25 lacs has been prescribed. As such the judgment of Manju Devi's case (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is distinguishable. 11. In the facts and circumstances, this miscellaneous appeal is allowed. 12. The claimant-appellants would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- as against Rs. 1,05,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. The claimant-appellants would be entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs. 75,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of presentation of this miscellaneous appeal i.e. 08.05.2002. The aforesaid amount be paid within a period of three months by means of demand draft in favour of claimant-appellants. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Let, a copy of this order be sent to the respondent No.3-insurance company, as they have chosen not to appear, despite service.Appeal allowed. *******