ORDER (CAV) This first appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 18.03.2004 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang in MAC Case No. 93/2001. By this judgment learned Tribunal allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- against National Insurance Company. Praying for enhancement of compensation amount, claimant has approached this Court by preferring this appeal. 2. Claim was lodged by one Hit Bahadur Chetry stating that when his daughter Uma Devi, who was a student of Class IX, was on way to home from school was hit by a Tata Truck bearing registration No. AR-01/6107 on 08.03.2001 at about 1-10/15 P.M. at Lamabari, Hatkhola village under Mazbat Police Station. It was alleged that the vehicle was moving in rash and negligent manner and knocked down the minor victim. Hearing about accident, claimant rushed to the spot and found his daughter lying dead. He did not see the truck. He claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/-. The owner, Suaram Boro appeared and denied rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. He denied occurrence of accident itself as well as the quantum of compensation claimed. However, he disclosed that the vehicle was covered by insurance of National Insurance Company Ltd, the opposite party No. 2. The insurance company submitted written statement denying all allegations and stated that claim was exorbitant and imaginary. In course of trial, claimant examined two witnesses including himself and an eye witness, namely, Hem Bahadur Chetri, PW 2. PW 1 (claimant) stated that having learnt about the occurrence of the accident, he rushed to the spot and found his daughter lying dead. He was informed by the PW 2 that the aforesaid offending vehicle had knocked down his daughter. She was reading in Class IX and was of about 16/17 years of age. PW 2, on the other hand, claimed to have seen the accident by himself. He said that he was coming from his house Lamabari by a cycle. The victim girl was also moving on a cycle. At Lamabari, the offending vehicle knocked her down and she died on spot. Thereafter, truck sped away in high speed. He gave the number of the vehicle in his deposition and stated that victim was 16/17 years old at that time and was a student. The victim girl was also moving on a cycle. At Lamabari, the offending vehicle knocked her down and she died on spot. Thereafter, truck sped away in high speed. He gave the number of the vehicle in his deposition and stated that victim was 16/17 years old at that time and was a student. Police took the dead body, truck was seized and dead body was sent to Mangaldoi Civil Hospital for post-mortem examination. In course of cross examination, he stated that the victim belonged to his village. He was interrogated by police about the accident. 3. The learned Tribunal determined the age of the victim girl at 15 years but without entering into detailed calculation of compensation applied thumb rule and decreed compensation of Rs. 30,000/- in all. It is this determination which has been brought under challenge in the present appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. PP Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. S Roy, learned counsel for the insurance company. I have perused the evidence of the parties and the exhibits adduced. 5. Once the learned trial court has arrived at a finding of fact that the victim was 15 years of age and since the learned counsel has expressed no grievance on such findings and virtually no argument was put forward challenging this finding of the Tribunal, appellate court is constrained to presume such determination to be correct until the contrary is proved. Now, the victim was a student of Class IX. She was not having any income. So, it is necessary to rely on notional income of non-earning victim as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi & ors v. Mohammad Tabbar & anr reported in (2008) 12 SCC 165 . In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court held that notional income for non-earning victim would be Rs. 3,000/- per month and so the annual notional income of the case in hand can be fixed at Rs. 36,000/-. Out of this amount 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses as the victim was unmarried at the time of unfortunate accident. The annual income, therefore, would be reduced to Rs. 18,000/- per year. 3,000/- per month and so the annual notional income of the case in hand can be fixed at Rs. 36,000/-. Out of this amount 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses as the victim was unmarried at the time of unfortunate accident. The annual income, therefore, would be reduced to Rs. 18,000/- per year. In the case of Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Company reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down modified the rate of multipliers to be used in all cases but on perusal of the same judgment, no such multiplier is discernible for a victim who is aged about 15 years. Under such circumstances, the only recourse open to the court is to rely on Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein the minimum multiplier for victim up to the age of 15 has been fixed at 15. The calculation, therefore, has to be made by multiplying annual income after deduction by 15 and to it is added the funeral expense to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. The calculation would be as follows: i) Annual income after deduction of 50% = Rs. 18,000/- ii) Amount of Compensation = Rs. 18,000/- x 15 = Rs. 2,70, 000/- iii) Add 50% future prospect = Rs. 1,35,000/- iv) Add funeral expenses = Rs. 25,000/- Total = Rs. 4,30, 000/- 6. Although neither the case of Sarala Verma (supra) nor the case of Rajesh & ors v. Rajbir Singh & ors reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 nor Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 deal with case of unemployed persons, yet once a notional income is fixed then the possibility of future prospect cannot be ruled out. After all there are uncertainties in life and no one can give assurance that the victim, had she been alive, would not have earned more than the notional income in her life. Besides, Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial piece of legislation and so giving benefit to the victim or the claimant must be the rule and denial of benefit is exception and in that event recording of reason is necessary. Notional income is also an income and so future prospect is given in this case to the tune of 50% of the calculated annual income. Hence, the total compensation is calculated at Rs. 4,30,000/-. Notional income is also an income and so future prospect is given in this case to the tune of 50% of the calculated annual income. Hence, the total compensation is calculated at Rs. 4,30,000/-. In the opinion of this Court just compensation in the present case would be Rs. 4,30,000/-. This shall be in addition to interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of this claim petition. The respondent appellant company shall make the payment within a period of three (3) months from the date of passing of this judgment. 7. The appeal stands allowed. 8. No order as to costs.