1. This is an appeal by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgement and award dated 17.5.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, in MAC Case No.642 of 2007. 2. The findings as returned by the Tribunal as regards the accident that occurred on 2.5.2007 for the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing registration No.AS-llB/5318, death of one Bhuban @ Buban Das aged about 13 years, son of the claimant and the insurance cover of the said vehicle by the appellant are not in dispute by either of the parties or in the appeal. As such those findings stand affirmed requiring no further appraisal. 3. The questions those have been raised in the appeal are related to the assessment of the compensation and its components. 4. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that while the claim was filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has no authority to travel beyond the Second Schedule as appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for assessing the damage. But in this case the Tribunal has awarded general damages to the extent of Rs. 15,000 which is not sustainable. Further that l/3rd of the notional income ought to have been excluded from the income of the minor boy as personal expenses. 5. While dwelling upon the contentions of Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. S.C. Kayal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 admitted that the assessment of the damage cannot but be based on the structured formula as available in the said Second Schedule. He seriously contested the proposition of Mr. 5. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the 2/3rd ought to have been deducted from the notional income of the minor boy who was aged about 13 years at the time of accident. He submitted that the notional income has been taken considering that the minor was not having any income. Therefore, there cannot be any qucsiion for deducting any amount as personal expenses. 6. On considering the rival pleas as raised by the counsel appearing for the parties, this court finds that the Tribunal has not committed any error by awarding the damage to the extent of Rs.2,25,000. Therefore, there cannot be any qucsiion for deducting any amount as personal expenses. 6. On considering the rival pleas as raised by the counsel appearing for the parties, this court finds that the Tribunal has not committed any error by awarding the damage to the extent of Rs.2,25,000. However, the Tribunal ought not have travelled beyond the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 while assessing the damages to be paid in addition to the pecuniary damages. As such, with the said amount Rs.2,000 as funeral expenses and Rs.2,500 for loss of estate be added. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.2,29,500. The said amount shall carry interest @ Rs.6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment is made. 7. For the reasons as aforesaid, the appeal is partially allowed to the extent as indicated above. 8. The appellant, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. shall pay the entire awarded sum with interest within a period of two months from today in the Tribunal on deducting the sum, if any paid by now. 9. The statutory deposit as made by the appellant be returned for purpose of making the final payment as directed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________