ORDER : Heard counsel for the appellants and the respondents. 2. In the present case, appellant s are not satisfied with the amount of compensation that has been awarded by the Tribunal in Claim Case No. 37 of 2010 vide judgment and award dated 20th February 2013. 3. Sanny Kumar, a child was crushed by a vehicle bearing Regd. No. JH-04B/1128 which was coming from the southern side. The driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, dashed the deceased, while he was standing with his mother Bachchi Devi as a result of which he received injury and died on the spot. A Criminal case has been launched, registered as Harpur P.S. Case No.11 of 2010 u/s 279, 304B IPC. The said vehicle was under insurance overage and, as such, the Insurance Company is obliged to indemnify the compensation amount arising from that accident. 4. The court below placing reliance on the judgment of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Syed Ibrahim and others, (2007)1 SCC 512 has computed the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.64,500/-. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the amount computed is on the lower side and it does not satisfy the guidelines set forth by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2007)1 SCC 512 where the amount of compensation has been awarded to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas in Krishna Gopal v. Lala, 2014 1 SCC 244 taking guide lines of (2001)8 SCC 197 , Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, has fixed the compensation amount refusing to accept Rs.15,000/- as notional income not appropriate on account of devaluation of money drastically from the year 1994. So the notional income of Rs.15,000/- has been enhanced to Rs.30,000/- per annum and placing reliance on Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009)6 SCC 121 case the Court has taken Multiplier of ‘15’ and accordingly, the court has arrived to a conclusion of Rs.4,50,000/- and added Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses and last rites as has been held in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas reported in (1994)2 SCC 176 . 6. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the guidelines provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the court below has gone wrong in only awarding a meager amount of Rs.60,500/- without considering the fact that a parent cannot be compensated by money of early demise of a tender child whereas counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the award amount that has been calculated by the Tribunal is proper and legal manner, fixation of amount of compensation does not require any interference. 7. However, this Court is not accepting the view of the Insurance Company. Even in the judgment relied by the Tribunal the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- and placing reliance on Lala case (supra) admittedly here guidelines have been provided, in what manner the calculation has to be made which appears to this Court to be proper and placing reliance on this judgment, this Court is of the view that the amount of Rs.60,500/- be enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- with 6 per cent interest per annum from the date of award and any amount paid will be adjusted against the said amount. The court below is directed to revise the award amount as aforesaid which will include 6 per cent interest per annum from the date of award. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the Insurance Company, in turn, is directed to pay the award amount within three moths from the date of the revision of the award.