Judgment : This appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge), Khammam in O.P.No.936 of 2009. United India Insurance Company Limited which is the second respondent before the Tribunal below is the appellant herein. Challenge to the award by the appellant is on the ground that the compensation granted to the claimants is exorbitant and not in accordance with the settled principles of law. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The claimants in the claim case filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are the mother, the elder sister of the deceased Syed Rahmathulla and also his father, the 4th respondent who was subsequently added as respondent in the claim petition before the Tribunal. The deceased was studying in Class III and was aged 8 years on the date of the accident. On 04.08.2009 at about 1.00 p.m. while he was crossing the road at attenders’ colony, Aswaraopeta in Khammam district, a lorry bearing registration No.WB-15-A-3588 driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, knocked him down and ran over his head causing his instantaneous death. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. The learned Tribunal after making an enquiry into the claim, awarded compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The said award passed by the learned Tribunal is questioned in this appeal by the Insurance Company on the ground that the compensation granted is on higher side and not in accordance with law.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that even if the amount of compensation is computed by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-per annum which is the income for non-earning persons mentioned in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act by applying the multiplier 15, it works out to the amount less than what was granted by the learned Tribunal and therefore, it deserves to be reduced in this appeal. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions: 1) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions: 1) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. SATENDER AND OTHERS (AIR 2007 SC 324(1)wherein the Supreme Court held at para 9 of the judgment as follows: “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.” In the said case, relating to the death of a child of 9 years in a motor vehicle accident, the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- 2) In ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. SYED IBRAHIM AND OTHERS ( AIR 2008 SC 103 (1)the deceased was aged 7 years, the Hon’ble Supreme Court following the same principle approved the compensation amount of Rs.51,500/-granted to the claimants by the Court below. 3) KAUSHLYADEVI v. KARAN ARORA (2007(7) SCALE 517)wherein the Supreme Court by laying down the same principles held that the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the claimants in a case relating to a death of the deceased boy aged 14 years. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal below failed to include the non-pecuniary damages relating to the future prospects of the child and the amount of compensation works out more than the amount which was awarded by the learned Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal below failed to include the non-pecuniary damages relating to the future prospects of the child and the amount of compensation works out more than the amount which was awarded by the learned Tribunal. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision in R.K. MALIK AND ANOTHER v. KIRNA PAI AND OTHERS (2009) 14 SCC)wherein the Supreme Court approved the decision of the High Court in awarding additional amount of Rs.75,000/-in respect of a child who died in a motor vehicle accident as non-pecuniary damages, apart from computing compensation having recourse to multiplier method by taking the income of the deceased at 15,000/-per annum for non-earning persons mentioned in the Second Schedule. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants the bus carrying 29 school children after overrunning the road, breaking the railing of the bridge plunged into Yamuna river killing all the 29 children. In the said accident, the school children were studying in reputed school and their parents who are the claimants were under affluent conditions. In the said case, the fact that the Supreme Court approved the decision of the High Court quantifying the non-pecuniary damages at Rs.75,000/-does not enable the courts to grant invariably the same amount towards non-pecuniary damages in each and every case. Each case has to be decided with reference to its own merits. While awarding non-pecuniary damages, the Court has to keep in mind the kind of school in which the child was studying, status of the parents, future prospects of the child etc. In the instant case, the deceased was aged 8 years and was studying in Class III in a school situate in a rural village. The first claimant, the mother of the deceased is a labourer, so also his father. The father discarded the mother and was livng separately, subsequent to the filing of the claim petition he got impleaded himself as one of the respondents in the claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased boy. In the instant case, the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing compensation can be taken notionally at Rs.15,000/-per annum which is the income provided in Second Schedule for non-earning persons. In the instant case, the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing compensation can be taken notionally at Rs.15,000/-per annum which is the income provided in Second Schedule for non-earning persons. From this, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs.5,000/-and the contribution to the family comes to Rs.10,000/-. The multiplier relevant is 15. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the above amount has to be capitalised with 15 which comes to Rs.10,000/-x 15 = Rs.1,50,000/-. Considering the social status of the parents of the deceased, his age, and the circumstances in which he was placed in on the date of the accident, an amount of Rs.30,000/-can be added towards non-pecuniary damages relating to the future prospects of the deceased. In all, the claimants viz. the mother, the elder sister and the father of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-. This amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.From what all stated hereinabove, the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-granted by the tribunal below is reduced to Rs.1,80,000/-.The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants as directed by the learned Tribunal in the award. The first claimant who is the mother of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the amount of her share together with proportionate costs and interest without furnishing any security. The appeal filed by the insurance Company is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.