JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 09.03.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Gondal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.392/1992 by which the learned Tribunal as awarded a total sum of Rs.1,42,500/- together with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization, the original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2. In a vehicular accident which took place on 28.05.1992 between Jeep No.MH04J5436 in which the deceased was travelling and one Truck No.GTW1746 which at the relevant time was being driven by original opponent No.1, deceased Nikhil died. Therefore, the parents of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming a total sum of Rs. 3 lac under different heads towards compensation for the death of the deceased Nikhil. 2.1. That on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the truck involved in the accident sole negligent. That for the purpose of awarding future loss of income/loss of dependency, learned Tribunal considered/assessed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 12,000/- per annum. That thereafter, after deducting ?rd towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency at Rs. 8000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 15, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- towards future loss of income. The learned Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- under the conventional heads and Rs. 2500/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,42,500/- towards compensation under various heads. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, original claimant Nos.1 and 2 have preferred the present First Appeal to enhance the amount of compensation. 3. Shri Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant Nos.1 and 2 has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- per annum. It is submitted that as the deceased at the time of accident was aged 14 years of age and having a bright career, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 12,000/- per annum. It is submitted that as the deceased at the time of accident was aged 14 years of age and having a bright career, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 30,000/- per annum. 3.1. It is further submitted by Shri Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant Nos.1 and 2 that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the deceased Nikhil was studying in 8th Std. and in future he will have a bright career and good earning capacity and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered/assessed Rs. 30,000/- per annum as yearly prospective income of the deceased Nikhil. It is further submitted by Shri Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant Nos.1 and 2 that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in deducting ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. In support of his above submissions, Shri Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of original claimant Nos.1 and 2 has heavily relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of N.K. Radhika v. M.S. Bhaskar, 2015 ACJ 154 and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Manju Devi v. Shankar Singh, 2015 ACJ 130 . 3.2. It is submitted that as the deceased was minor and as such was not earning anything and therefore, he could not have spent anything towards his personal expenses and he was dependent upon the parents more particularly the father, there shall be not any deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased while considering the future loss of income. 3.3. By drawing attention of this Court to the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009)6 SCC 121 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that in case of bachelor, 1/2 is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased bachelor, Shri Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made observations with respect to the deceased bachelor and not with respect to minor deceased. He has submitted that according to the Law Dictionary, "bachelor" means "any under graduate". According to him "under gratuity" only can be said to be bachelor. He has submitted that according to the Law Dictionary, "bachelor" means "any under graduate". According to him "under gratuity" only can be said to be bachelor. It is submitted that therefore in the case of death of a minor, there shall be not any deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased minor while considering the future loss of income. 3.4. It is further submitted by Shri Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that even otherwise the learned Tribunal has materially erred in applying multiplier of 15 while awarding future loss of income. It is submitted that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and as the deceased was aged 14 years of age, multiplier of 18 is required to be applied. 3.5. It is further submitted by Shri Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of original claimant Nos.1 and 2 that even otherwise the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.20,000/- only under the conventional heads. It is submitted that the claimants were entitled to at least Rs. 50,000/- under the conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of love and affection etc. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present First Appeal and enhance the amount of compensation accordingly. 4. Present First Appeal is opposed by Shri Maulik Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 herein insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. Shri Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal can be said to be just compensation. 4.1. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per annum while considering the prospective income of the deceased. 4.2. It is further submitted by Shri Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurer that the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), in case of a bachelor, 1/2 is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. It is submitted that one another meaning of "bachelor" is "unmarried". It is submitted that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), in case of a bachelor, 1/2 is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. It is submitted that one another meaning of "bachelor" is "unmarried". It is submitted that therefore when the minor also can be said to be unmarried and therefore, bachelor as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), even in case of death of a minor, 1/2 is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. It is submitted that therefore submission of Shri Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that in case of death of minor there shall not be any deduction towards personal expenses of the minor cannot be accepted. 4.3. Now, so far as the multiplier to be applied and the amount to be awarded under the conventional head is concerned, he has ultimately left it to the Court. However, has vehemently submitted that as the total claim in the appeal is Rs. 75,000/- only, present First Appeal be restricted to additional amount of Rs. 75,000/- only. 4.4. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the insurance company that as the present First Appeal is restricted to additional amount of Rs. 75,000/- only, nothing more than Rs. 75,000/- can be awarded in the present First Appeal is concerned, Shri Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim v. Raju, (2011) 10 SCC 634 . It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that irrespective of the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants, it is the duty of the Court to award just compensation. It is submitted that therefore subject to payment of additional court fees, the claimants shall be entitled to just compensation which may be even claimed either in the original claim petition and/or in the appeal. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length. 5.1. It is submitted that therefore subject to payment of additional court fees, the claimants shall be entitled to just compensation which may be even claimed either in the original claim petition and/or in the appeal. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length. 5.1. Present appeal has been preferred by the original claimants to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, awarded for the death of the deceased who at the time of accident was minor aged about 14 years of age and studying in 8th Std. By impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,42,500/- under different heads against the total claim of Rs. 3 lac as under: Rs. 1,20,000 Future loss of income Rs. 20,000 Conventional Heads Rs. 2,500 Funeral Expenses Rs. 1,42,500 Total From the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal it appears that while awarding future loss of income the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per annum and after deducting ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and after applying the multiplier of 15 the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- towards future loss of income. However, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (2001)8 SCC 197 and the recent decision in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & Ors., (2014)1 SCC 244 , the notional income of the deceased is required to be considered at Rs. 36,000/- per annum (Rs.3000/- per month) and as the deceased was a minor/bachelor, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), 1/2 is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The contention on behalf of the original claimants that as the deceased was a minor and therefore, nothing is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Ors. v. Madan Mohan and Anr., (2013)9 SCC 65 . v. Madan Mohan and Anr., (2013)9 SCC 65 . The submission of Shri Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that as in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has used the word "bachelor" and the dictionary meaning of the word "bachelor" would be undergraduate" and therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) shall not be applicable, also cannot be accepted. One of the dictionary meaning of "bachelor" would be "undergraduate", however one another meaning would be "unmarried person". Under the circumstances, the deceased who at the time of accident was aged 14 years can also be considered to be "unmarried person" and therefore, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) in case of "bachelor", 1/2 is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, while awarding/considering the future loss of income. However, at the same time future rise in income is also required to be considered. Under the circumstances, the loss of dependency to the family would come to Rs.27,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 18, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 4,86,000/-. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- in all under the conventional heads and Rs. 2500/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 5,38,500/-. However, the total amount claimed by the original claimants before the learned Tribunal was Rs. 3 lac and in the present appeal, Rs.75,000/- only. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the insurer that any amount more than Rs. 75,000/- claimed in the present appeal and/or even claimed in the main claim petition may not be awarded. However, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim v. Raju, (2011)10 SCC 634 , the aforesaid cannot be accepted and the claimants are required to be awarded just compensation irrespective of their claim, however subject to payment of additional court fees. 5.2. Identical question came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim (Supra) and in para 21 has observed and held as under: 21. 5.2. Identical question came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim (Supra) and in para 21 has observed and held as under: 21. We are conscious of the fact that in the petition filed by him, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs only with interest and cost. It will be reasonable to presume that due to financial incapacity the appellant and his family could not avail the services of a competent lawyer and make a claim for adequate compensation. However, as the Tribunal and the High Court and for that reason this Court are duty bound to award just compensation, we deem it proper to enhance the compensation from Rs.1,89,440/- to Rs. 6 lakhs. This approach is in tune with the judgment in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh. In that case, the Court considered a similar issue, referred to the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Kisan Gangaram Hire, Orissa High Court in Mulla Md. Abdul Wahid v. Abdul Rahim and Punjab and Haryana High Court in Devki Nandan Bangur v. State of Haryana and observed: "21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/court is to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under subsection (4) to section 166, even the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under subsection (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the MV Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit amendment to the claim petition." Under the circumstances, the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,38,500/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of application till realisation which can be said to be just compensation, subject to payment of Court fees on the enhanced amount of compensation above Rs. 75,000/- claimed in the present appeal and for that purpose the appellants original claimants are permitted to amend the claim in the present appeal to Rs. 5,38,500/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of application till realisation which can be said to be just compensation, subject to payment of Court fees on the enhanced amount of compensation above Rs. 75,000/- claimed in the present appeal and for that purpose the appellants original claimants are permitted to amend the claim in the present appeal to Rs. 5,55,000/- and the appellants to pay the additional Court fees on Rs. 5,55,000/- (after deducting Court fees on Rs. 75,000/-) within a period of two weeks from today. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present First Appeal succeeds in part and is accordingly partly allowed. Impugned judgment and award dated 09.03.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Gondal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.392/1992 is hereby modified to the extent it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 5,38,500/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of application till realisation towards compensation for the death of deceased Nikhilkumar, however subject to their amending the present appeal enhancing the claim in the present appeal and subject to the payment of additional Court fees on Rs. 5,50,000/-. On amending the claim in the appeal and on payment of additional Court fees as observed herein above, the respondent insurer to deposit the balance enhanced amount of compensation with the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today and on such deposit the same be paid to the original claimants by Account Payee cheques, however the amount of compensation be apportioned as directed by the learned Tribunal. Present First Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.