ORDER I.A.No.5190 of 2013 has been filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 3. For the reasons stated in the limitation petition, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. I.A.No.5190 of 2013 stands allowed. 5. The insurer of the offending vehicle Indica Car bearing registration no.BR-9D-8678 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 20.06.2012 and 30.06.2012 respectively passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge,1-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Begusarai in Claim Case No.54/2010 by which the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 6. The father aged about 40 years and mother aged about 36 years of the deceased Durgesh Kumar, aged about 10 years filed the claim case for grant of compensation due to the death of his son Durgesh caused by rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid offending vehicle. 7. The opposite party no.1 (appellant) filed his written statement stating that this case is not maintainable and claimants have to prove the accident. The opposite party nos. 2 and 3 (owner and Driver) appeared and filed their written statement stating that the vehicle was insured by the New India Assurance Company, as such, the appellant is liable to pay the amount of compensation. 8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. The claimants adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. 9. After considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and hearing the parties, the impugned order has been passed. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased Durgesh Kumar, aged about 10 years was a Bachelor and as such, in view of Sarla Verma’s case reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , there should have been 50% deduction towards personal expenses and not 1/3rd as held by the learned Tribunal. 11. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has given 8% interest instead of 6%, which is not proper. 12. He has further submitted that in case of minor above the age of 5 years, there should be fixed amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in view of the decision in the case of Puttamma and others Vs. 11. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has given 8% interest instead of 6%, which is not proper. 12. He has further submitted that in case of minor above the age of 5 years, there should be fixed amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in view of the decision in the case of Puttamma and others Vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy and another reported in AIR 2014 SC (Civil) 580, as such, the fixed amount should be given. 13. He has further submitted that Shankar Bhagat, who was also claimant in the claim application filed before the Tribunal for self injuries, should have been filed the separate application for compensation. 14. The learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that there should be no deduction from the notional income of Rs.36,000/- in view of decision in the case of Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 244. 15. The learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle has submitted that since the vehicle was insured by the appellant-company, the owner is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 16. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that it is admitted case that Durgesh Kumar aged about 10 years was the victim of the occurrence due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The notional amount of compensation has been fixed as Rs.36,000/-per annum by the Tribunal. In view of Sarla Verma’s case (supra), 50% of the amount should be deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased. 17. In case of Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 244, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not deducted the amount of compensation considering the fact that about 21 years have passed in the settlement of the legitimate claim of the claimants and interest has also been awarded to 9%. In this case, the occurrence has taken place on 28.03.2010 and the Tribunal has decided the case of compensation on 20.02.2012, as such, this decision is not helpful to the claimants (respondent nos. 1 and 2). 18. In case of Puttamma and others Vs. In this case, the occurrence has taken place on 28.03.2010 and the Tribunal has decided the case of compensation on 20.02.2012, as such, this decision is not helpful to the claimants (respondent nos. 1 and 2). 18. In case of Puttamma and others Vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy and another reported in AIR 2014 SC (Civil) 580, it appears from paragraph 56 of the judgment that for children up to the age of five years shall be entitled for fixed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and persons more than five years of age shall be entitled for fixed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Such amount is to be paid if any application is filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It appears that the present compensation case has been filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, as such; this decision is not helpful to the insurer-appellant. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the notional income of the deceased is estimated as Rs.36,000/-per annum. 50% of which is deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. As such, the annual dependency comes to Rs.18,000/-, which is multiplied by 15. It comes to Rs.2,70,000/- to which Rs.5,000/- is added for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/-is added for the loss of estate, which comes to Rs.2,85,000/-. Out of which, Rs.50,000/- has already been given to the claimants under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. 20. It appears that there is no bar that the claim can not be made for the injury/fatal injury in an application if the two members of a family get injury in the same accident. Moreover, only Rs.25,000/- has been given for the injuries caused to Shankar Bhagat by the offending vehicle. 21. Considering the facts and circumstances, this amount is not liable to be interfered. 22. Now, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.2,35,000/- + Rs.25,000/- i.e. total amount of Rs.2,60,000/- (two lacs sixty thousand) only with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 4.08.2010 till its realization. 23. The appellant is directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount with interest within a period of two months. 24. To this extent, the impugned judgment and award are modified. 25. In the result, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 26. The parties will bear their own costs. 27. 23. The appellant is directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount with interest within a period of two months. 24. To this extent, the impugned judgment and award are modified. 25. In the result, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 26. The parties will bear their own costs. 27. Let the statutory amount deposited in this Court be sent to the Tribunal in favour of Shankar Bhagat, respondent no.1 for payment towards the amount of compensation, as prayed for on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant. Let the lower court records be sent to the Tribunal.