RAFIQ, J.—Delay in filing the appeal nos.1038/2010 and 3513/2008 are condoned. The respective applications u/s.5 of the Limitation Act are allowed. 2. These three appeals are directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar dated 17.03.2008 by which the claim filed by claimants Ashok and Geeta Devi in appeal no.24/2006 (34/06) has been allowed and they have been granted compensation of Rs.2,05,000 for the accidental death of their son Ajay Kumar aged 14 years on 29.9.2005. Ajay Kumar was hit by a tempo bearing no.RJ-01-P-0305, which was being driven by non-claimant-Raju Pandit. The tempo was insured with the respondent no.5-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The registered owner of the said vehicle was Narendra Kumar-non-claimant no.2 but in evidence it transpired that he had sold the vehicle to Tulsi Das-non-claimant no.3, however, the registration certificate was not yet transferred in his name. The learned Tribunal while discussing the evidence on issue no.5 came to a finding that tempo was a goods carriage vehicle and that the non-claimant no.1 Raju Pandit did not have the licence to drive a transport vehicle, nor his licence Ex.6 and licence verification report Ex.A2 of the transport department, Beawar Ex.A3 proved that claimant no.1 was authorised to drive a motor cycle with gear and light motor vehicle which licence was valid from 21.02.2002 to 20.02.2002 but at the relevant time he was driving a tempo which was insured with the respondent-insurance company as commercial vehicle, as is evident from the policy Ex.A1. The learned Tribunal has relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai-2006 (2) TAC 1 (SC) = RLW 2006(3) SC 1863. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company of its liability but at the same time required it to satisfy the award and make recovery of the awarded compensation from the de facto and de jure both. 3. The issue of liability of both registered owner as well as the person to whom the vehicle has been sold and was found in actual possession, has been considered in the case of P.P. Mohammed vs. K. Rajappan & Ors.-2003 ACJ 1595 and it has been held that both the de facto and de jure owners would be liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. Appeals preferred by two owners, therefore, have no merit and they are liable to be dismissed. 4. In so far as the appeal preferred by the claimant is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant has relied on the judgement of this Court in Smt. Nana Devi & Ors. vs. Gurumel Singh & Ors. decided on 02.11.2011 wherein for accidental death of a child aged upto 15 years, compensation of Rs.2,50,000 has been awarded. This Court in arriving at that conclusion has relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in R.K. Malik & Anr. vs. Kiran Pal & Ors.- (2009) 14 SCC 1 = 2009(2) CCR 1044 (SC) and Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar- (2001) 8 SCC 197 . The compensation awarded to the claimant is therefore enhanced to Rs.2,50,000 with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. 5. The appeal preferred by the claimant is thus allowed to that extent.