JUDGMENT : Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 1. This is an appeal by the original claimants-appellants, herein, challenging the judgment and award of the learned MACT (Auxi.), Mehsana (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Dated: 04.01.2006, rendered in MACP No. 1298 of 1992, whereby, the Tribunal partly allowed the said claim petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.07.1992, while the deceased Shailesh, who happened to be the son of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and brother of appellant No. 3, was proceeding on his school, the original opponent No. 1, who was driving an S.T. Bus bearing registration No. GJ-1-9517 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the cycle of the deceased Shailesh from behind. On account of that the deceased sustained grave injuries and expired. Hence, the present appellants preferred the aforesaid claim petition, wherein, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the original claimants-appellants, herein, submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error in passing the impugned judgment and award inasmuch as it failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective. He submitted that looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 15 years, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/-. He submitted that the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is also on lower side. He submitted that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional head are also inadequate. He, therefore, prayed that the present appeal be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Patel, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2-GSRTC, strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award after taking into consideration entire material on record, and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court. 5. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the impugned judgment and award. 6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the case on hand the deceased was a minor boy, who was dashed from behind, while he was proceeding on his cycle, by a bus driven by Respondent No. 1 and owned by Respondent No. 2. 6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the case on hand the deceased was a minor boy, who was dashed from behind, while he was proceeding on his cycle, by a bus driven by Respondent No. 1 and owned by Respondent No. 2. Further, in view of the fact that the deceased was a minor and the Respondents have not challenged the order of the Tribunal by filing any appeal or x-objections, the aspect with regard to negligence is not required to be gone into by this Court and the finding of the Tribunal requires to be confirmed to that extent. 7. Here, before proceeding further the note of the fact, which is not in dispute, may be taken, viz. the deceased was a minor and he lost his life on account of the accident caused by the bus driven by Respondent No. 1 and owned by Respondent No. 2. In so far as the aspect of quantum of compensation is concerned, the case of the appellants before the Tribunal was that the deceased was a very brilliant student and had he survived, he could definitely have secured a good job, and thereby, they have claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 8. Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the appellants-claimants, taken this Court through the entire record. The attention of this Court is also drawn to a decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 5279 of 2007, Dated: 22.01.2006, wherein, this Court at Paragraphs-5.1 and 5.2 has observed and held as under; [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. 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 1/3rd 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 vs. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 and the recent decision in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. vs. Lala & Ors. Reported in (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), Â 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. vs. Madan Mohan and Anr. Reported in (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". 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", Â 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 vs. Raju reported in (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. 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. 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 timebarred 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 sub-section (4) to section 166, even the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section158 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 realization 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." 9. 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." 9. In the case on hand the deceased was aged about 15 years and the claimants-appellants are the parents and sister, respectively. The deceased was the only son of the claimants-appellant Nos. 1 and 2. This Court has gone through the judgment of the Apex Court as well as of this Court. It is submitted by Ms. Patel that in the cases referred, herein above, the documentary evidences were produced on record, and therefore, the income of the deceased, therein, were considered at Rs. 36,000/-. In this case, the notional income of the deceased can be considered at Rs. 1200/- + Rs. 600/-= i.e. Rs. 1800/-. However, as the decision of the Apex Court is binding to this Court without further delving into the other aspects, the original claim of the appellants-claimants to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/- is accepted. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,23,000/-, and therefore, the appellants shall be entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 3,00,000 - 1,23,000=Rs. 1,77,000/- towards compensation. 10. So far as the rate of interest, on the additional amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has granted 9 per cent interest per annum on the original amount of compensation, which, taking into consideration, the current repo rate, appears to be be just and proper. 11. In the result, this appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED. The original claimants-appellants, herein, shall be awarded a total additional amount of Rs. 1,77,000/-, over and above the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with 9 per cent interest per annum from the date of filing claim petition, till its realization. The judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 04.01.2006 stands MODIFIED to the aforesaid extent. The amount of compensation shall be deposited with the concerned Tribunal within a period of EIGHT WEEKS from today. If, the aforesaid amount is not deposited within eight weeks, then, the rate of interest shall be TWELVE percent. R. & P., if any received, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. No order as to costs.