JUDGMENT : K.J. THAKER, J. 1. By way of the present appeal, the appellants - original claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 3.8.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Sabarkantha @ Himmatnagar in M.A.C.P. No.714 of 2007. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.3.2007 at about 12.00 p.m., deceased minor Dilipsinh was going on his bicycle towards Deshotar - Shaktinagar to Idar - Valasna road near western side of farm of Patel Shankarbhai Venabhai and at that time, opponent No.1 - driver of the Jeep No.GJ-9-V-7023 came by driving his Jeep in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the bicycle of deceased minor Dilipsinh as a result of which he fall down on the road and sustained serious injuries and died due to vehicular accidental injuries. 2.1 Hence, the parents of deceased minor Dilipsinh have filed M.A.C.P. No.714 of 2002 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-. 2.2 The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award dated 3.8.2009 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,54,500/- as compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. From the date of petition till realization. 3. Mr. M.I. Mansuri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding only ?rd dependency benefit to the present appellants from the income of the deceased. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not considering future prospective income of the deceased. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has fallen in error while taking multiplier of 15 as looking to the age of the deceased as 17 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier would have been 16. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned award of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has fallen in error while taking multiplier of 15 as looking to the age of the deceased as 17 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier would have been 16. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned award of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly. In support of his submissions, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, (2014) 1 SCC 244 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "In Lata Wadhwa, (2001) 8 SCC 197 , it was observed that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be double of what is stated in Schedule II to the M.V. Act, as the determination made was grossly inadequate and further made that the loss of children is irrecoupable and no amount of money could compensate the parents. The legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa case is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years old, who was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation which is an undisputed fact. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard." 4. Ms. Karuna V. Rahewar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has supported the award of the Tribunal. She has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is called for by this Court in the present Appeal. 5. I have gone through the award of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- since deceased Dilipsinh was 17 years old and was non- earning member and thereafter multiplier of 15 was applied. Hence, the amount comes Rs.2,25,000/-, out of which ?rd amount of the personal expenses of the deceased was deducted and the amount comes to Rs.1,50,000/-. Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards the loss of estate as per 2nd Schedule was awarded. Though Mr. Hence, the amount comes Rs.2,25,000/-, out of which ?rd amount of the personal expenses of the deceased was deducted and the amount comes to Rs.1,50,000/-. Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards the loss of estate as per 2nd Schedule was awarded. Though Mr. M.I. Mansuri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), in my opinion, a deviation can be made in this matter as the income calculated by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on the higher side. However, as far as compensation awarded under other heads as well as the multiplier awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be reasonable and the Tribunal was very conservative while awarding the said amount. Hence, if a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the claimants over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, it would be just and reasonable compensation. Further, the interest @ 6% awarded by the Tribunal is on the lesser side. At the relevant time when the award was pronounced by the Tribunal, the rate of interest was 7.5%. The Tribunal could not have followed different standards in different matters. The glaring example is of MACP No.591 of 2010 which is listed today where the rate of interest is awarded more by the very Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal should have maintained standard formula for awarding interest. Hence, the appellants are entitled for interest @ 7.5%. 6. In the result, the present appeal succeeds and is partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled to receive an amount of Rs.2,54,500/- in all towards compensation from the defendant No.3 Insurance Company along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of claim petition till realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional amount of Rs.1 Lac awarded by this Court along with 7.5% interest before the Tribunal within a period of 90 days from today failing which the interest shall be @ 12% p.a. If the actual awarded amount with interest is not deposited by the Tribunal, the same shall also be deposited within a period of 90 days from today. The difference of amount as per the higher rate of interest awarded by this Court @ 7.5% shall also be deposited by the Insurance Company with the Tribunal within a period of 90 days from today. The parties shall bear their own costs.