JUDGMENT : V. Gopala Gowda, J. This appeal has been filed by the parents of the deceased questioning the correctness of the judgment and award 20-12-2000 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge-cum-Ist M.A.C.T., Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 509 of 1998 awarding compensation at Rs. 1,10,000/- disbelieving the evidence adduced by the appellants that while their deceased son was doing business, his monthly income was at Rs. 11,000/-, urging various facts and legal contentions. 2. Dr. Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the appellants placing reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kumud Khosla and others, 1995 ACJ 107 , has claimed for enhancement of compensation by Rs. 3,40,000/-. Dr. Mohanty has at tacked the impugned award on another ground that the Tribunal has erroneously recorded the claim made by the appellants though they have adduced documentary evidence by examining two witnesses. P.W.1 is the father who has stated that the deceased son was studying +3 in Bhadrak College and he had his own business (Tussar and Silk). His average income was Rs. 11,000/- per month. His monthly contribution to the family was Rs. 28,000/-. The said evidence has remained unchallenged though he was cross-examined before the Tribunal. P.W.2, the Branch Manager of the Orissa State Tussar and Silk Co-operative Society has stated that the deceased was a regular customer from their sale depot at Gopalpur. He has further stated that the annual turnover of the deceased was Rs. 5,00,000/-. He has produced the cash memos/receipts issued by the society in respect of the purchase from the said society. The said witness in cross- examination has clarified that the takeover of the sale from the depot of the Co-operative Society was more than Rs. 50,00,000/- per year during 1996, 1997 and 1998. In his cross- examination, he has stated that the monthly transaction of the deceased would be Rs. 10,00,000/-. The said evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal to determine just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, Dr. Mohanty, learned senior counsel pleaded that it is a fit case for enhancement of compensation by modifying the impugned judgment. 3. Mr. In his cross- examination, he has stated that the monthly transaction of the deceased would be Rs. 10,00,000/-. The said evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal to determine just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, Dr. Mohanty, learned senior counsel pleaded that it is a fit case for enhancement of compensation by modifying the impugned judgment. 3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Insurance Company sought to justify the impugned judgment awarding just and reasonable compensation, inter alia, contending that as the Tribunal which is the fact finding authority, on proper appreciation of the facts and the legal evidence available on record and recording valid and cogent reasons, has rightly rejected the claim made by the appellants that their son was doing business, the same cannot be said to be erroneous or error in law. He further submitted that the case pleaded by the appellants that their son was doing business, has been disbelieved by the Tribunal and just and reasonable compensation has been awarded by it holding that he was a student as the claimant-parents were not able to prove the income of their deceased son for determination of their loss of dependency on him. Therefore, the impugned award does not call for interference. He also submitted that the reliance placed by the claimants upon the decision of the Delhi High Court (supra) has no application to the fact situation of the present case and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 4. With reference to the aforesaid rival legal contentions, the following points arise for consideration. (i) Whether the compensation awarded at Rs. 1,10,000/- is just and reasonable and if not, to what extent the compensation would be enhanced by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to award just and reasonable compensation? (ii) What award? 5. The first point is required to be answered in favour of the claimant-appellants for the following reasons. 6. The Tribunal being the fact finding authority, on proper appreciation of the facts and legal evidence on record has answered the contentious point that the deceased son of the appellant died in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the said finding of fact has not been challenged by the owner or the insurer after availing permission as provided under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The present appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation. The compensation has been awarded in respect of a deceased boy who was studying in +3 class. If he had not died in the motor vehicle accident on the fateful day, he would have been employed as either an officer or as an employee in Government or Private Establishment and undisputedly he would have been earning a sizeable sum during his life time, which is not the basis taken by the Tribunal for computation, as it would be of future earning of the deceased son of the appellants, in the fact situation, in absence of any legal evidence on record in respect of annual income of the deceased. However, in the case of death of a school boy or a college boy, certain criteria have been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3218 . In the said case, compensation awarded in respect of the minor children was divided into two groups, i.e. 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 the 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 2 which the conventional figure of Rs. 25,000/- is to be 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 are concerned, 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 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, has been granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,57,000/-. 12,000/- per annum, 11 multiplier has been applied, particularly, depending upon the age of 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, has been granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,57,000/-. Applying the guidelines laid down in the case of Lata Wadhwa ( AIR 2001 SC 3218 ) (supra) and also applying the structural formula in the second schedule under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in absence of proof of annual income and not accepting the annual income of the deceased pleaded and proved by examining P.W.2, this Court safely can take the annual income of the deceased at 7 40,000/-. After ?rd deduction, it would come to Rs. 27,000/- and odd which is rounded off to Rs. 27,000/-. On the basis of the age of the mother who is 40 years of age, applying the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 , applying 14 multiplier, the loss of dependency of the claimants would be Rs. 3,78,000/-. Under conventional heads, Rs. 30,000/- is to be added towards funeral and obsequies ceremonies expenses, loss of love and affection. Therefore, the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,08,000/- in view of the facts of this case which warrants such enhancement. The respondent No. 2 insurer is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants, along with interest at 6% from the date of this appeal till payment within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Registry is directed to draw up the modified award in terms of this judgment. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed.