JUDGMENT : This appeal is against a judgment and award dated 14th March, 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Malda in MACC No.225 of 2009 whereby the appellant claimants have been awarded Rs.1,27,000/- on account of loss of their four-year old child in an accident involving motor cycle no.WB66E-0283 owned by the respondent no.2 and covered by a policy of insurance taken out by New India Assurance Company Limited, hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent insurer’. 2. The award was made in an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Motor Vehicles Act or in any other law for the time being in force, or any instrument having in force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer would be liable to pay, in case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. 3. In this case, the learned Tribunal has arrived at the finding, and rightly, that the child of the appellant claimants was killed in an accident involving the vehicle in question, insured by the respondent insurer. The appellant claimants are entitled to compensation as indicated in the schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act by treating the notional income of the child at Rs.15,000/- per year. 4. The issues involved in this appeal are covered by the judgment and order of the Division Bench of this High Court in Smt. Pato Mandal Vs. The appellant claimants are entitled to compensation as indicated in the schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act by treating the notional income of the child at Rs.15,000/- per year. 4. The issues involved in this appeal are covered by the judgment and order of the Division Bench of this High Court in Smt. Pato Mandal Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another, reported in 2008 (2) T.A.C. 818 (Cal.) : (2008) 2 WBLR (SC) 329, where this Court, on considering various decisions of the Supreme Court, held as follows: “On consideration of the entire materials on record, and bearing in mind the rule of interpretation of Statute laid down above, we are, thus, of the firm opinion that the on the face of plain language of the Act, in case of death of a non-earning child up to the age of 15, irrespective of the age, his income should be taken to be notionally Rs.15,000/- p.a. and the appropriate multiplier based on, not only the age of the victim-child but also the age of the applicant, as held in the case of U.P. Road Transport Corporation (supra), should be applicable (of the two, the multiplier which is lower is to be applied as pointed out by an earlier Two-Judges Bench in the case of C.K. Subramonia Iyer and others v. T. Kunhikuttan and others, reported in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 376, and referred to in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and in arriving at the figure of compensation, all other applicable directions given in the Second Schedule of the Act, such as deduction of one-third of the annual income, addition of funeral charges and loss of estate as specified therein should be followed. However, the mistakes pointed out in the table by the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Road Transport Corporation (supra) should not be followed. ” 5. The notional income of the child is deemed to be Rs.15,000/-per annum. The child being four years, that is, less than 15 years of age, the multiplier applicable to the age group of upto 15 years would apply. 6. In Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. ” 5. The notional income of the child is deemed to be Rs.15,000/-per annum. The child being four years, that is, less than 15 years of age, the multiplier applicable to the age group of upto 15 years would apply. 6. In Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 SAR (Civil) 525 : (2013) 3 WBLR (SC) 382, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that in cases where the age of the deceased is upto 15 years, irrespective of Section 166 or Section 163A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed in Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 : 2009 (3) WBLR (SC) 700 would have to be followed. As per the correction in Column (6) of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier in case of age group of upto 15 years is “20”. 7. The award is modified to the extent that the appellant claimants would be entitled to compensation as computed hereinbelow: Add Rs.15,000/- X ‘20’ Rs.3,00,000/- Less one-third, towards Personal expenses, i.e., (Rs.3,00,000/- ÷ 3) (-) Rs.1,00,000/- Add funeral expenses etc. (Rs.2000/- + Rs.2500/-) (+) Rs. 4,500/- Total Rs.2,04,500/- 8. The claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till full liquidation of the compensation as per this judgment and order as per reducing balance. 9. We are informed that the amount, awarded by the learned Tribunal, has already been paid. The balance amount shall be deposited, along with interest, in the Tribunal within sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. The appeal and the application are, accordingly, disposed of.