JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. The appeal is directed against the award dated 26.10.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in MACT Case No. 55/1994 by which an award of Rs. 92,000/- has been passed. 2. Brief facts of the mishap are that while Navin Kumar a child of about 16 years was standing behind the truck after deboarding, its driver Kalu Lal reversed the truck without looking behind resultantly Navin Kumar was run over by the truck and died. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 92,000/- by awarding Rs. 80,000/- towards pecuniary loss, Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and rest of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The main contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that learned Tribunal has committed error in not awarding and assessing income of the deceased boy Navin Kumar notionally. Learned Counsel for the appellants relying upon the following judgments :- (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarn Singh & Ors., 2004 R.A.R. 17 (SC); (ii) Fahim Ahmad & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2014 R.A.R. 83 (SC); (iii) Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & Ors., MACD 2013 (SC) 289, has contended that the Tribunal has passed erroneous award by not granting notional income and has only granted compensation in sum of Rs. 92,000/- on the basis of conjectures, which is inappropriate since the deceased boy was a student of 9th Class and was about 16 years of age, rate of interest has also been wrongly given at 8%, which must have been granted at the rate of 15%. The vehicle was being driven by a valid driving license-holder and the Insurance Company has wrongly been exonerated from paying the award amount and award amount must have been saddled upon the Insurance Company. Hence, the award needs to be increased by applying notional income of the deceased child Navin Kumar. Per contra, Counsel representing the respondent Insurance Company has submitted that the impugned award does not suffer from any wrong. The Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay the award amount and finding to this effect does not require any interference, the award passed is also correct with respect to quantum as well. 3. I have been heard learned Counsel for both the parties, examined the impugned award and material available on record. 4. The Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay the award amount and finding to this effect does not require any interference, the award passed is also correct with respect to quantum as well. 3. I have been heard learned Counsel for both the parties, examined the impugned award and material available on record. 4. Brief facts of the unfateful event discloses that 16 years old deceased boy Navin was crushed on 20.1.1993, while the truck was being reversed. Claimant Kalu Lal S/o Pancha Meena examined as PW-1 has stated that his 16 years old son Navin was a student of 9th Class and was healthy intelligent and stood first in examinations, he was inclined to provide him further studies and get him employed. Had he not died, he would have earned Rs. 4000/- per month. He has further said that he is under pangs of sorrow due to death of his son. PW-2 Shankar Lal narrating about the accident has stated that he had witnessed the accident, which was caused because of negligence of truck driver. The driver reversed his vehicle without looking behind. He has also stated that he stayed there for half an hour. Bansi Lal NAW-1 has been examined on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company, stating himself to be an investigator has said that the questioned license of the driver was issued in the name of Kalu Lal S/o. Nathu Lal and was valid up to 29.6.1992. it was again renewed on 22.1.1993 to 21.1.1996. in the cross-examination he has stated that he is an investigator for all the insurance companies and has stated that R.T.O. did not issue any receipt but he had given a letter to the R.T.O. 5. The impugned order has been passed for an award of Rs. 92,000/- out of which Rs. 80,000/- has been awarded towards pecuniary loss and Rs. 10,000/-towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses; as such an award of Rs. 92,000/- has been passed. The impugned order has been passed for an award of Rs. 92,000/- out of which Rs. 80,000/- has been awarded towards pecuniary loss and Rs. 10,000/-towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses; as such an award of Rs. 92,000/- has been passed. A perusal of impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company while deciding issue No. 3 after appreciating the evidence of NAW-1 Banshi Lal, who has said that he was appointed as Investigator to investigate the fact of driving licence No. 67348 and has further said that this licence was issued on 30.6.1989 and was valid upto 29.6.1992 and subsequently it was revalidated from 22.1.1993 to 21.1.1996 and further for 11.7.1996 to 10.7.1999 and it was not renewed on 20.1.1993. This witness has said several important utterances that the R.T.O. refused to tender any certificate in writing and 1 perused the record. While cross-examined, this witness has also said that I am not in a position to state as to whether delay in getting renewal of the licence makes it valid or not. He has also said that he does not know the name of the R.T.O. clerk. He has also said that he did not inquire anything from the driver Kalulal. It is pertinent to observe that no document or testimony from the concerned R.T.O. was produced by the Insurance Company. Exhibit A/1 is also not known as to by which authority it was given and it has been shown to be written on 27.7.1998 whereas exhibit A/3 the report of the investigator is of 28.7.1998 which is a subsequent day and Exhibit A/2 is dated 27.7.1997, which is a carbon copy purported to have been given by the Investigator to the R.T.O. does have original signature on this carbon copy. As such, at the request of Insurance Company, the Investigator tendered letter to the R.T.O. on the same day and preparation of the report on the subsequent date, makes the entire process dubious altogether because no certificate has been given by the concerned R.T.O. establishing that on the day of fateful accident, the driving licence of the driver was not renewed. The accident relates to 20.1.1993 whereas prior to the accident and subsequent to the accident the said licence is asserted to be valid, even before the accident and on 22.1.1993 i.e. two days later to the accident, the said licence is asserted to be valid. 6. There is no evidence on the record reflecting that the licence of the truck driver was annulled or cancelled for any period of time, sheer a non-proved contention has been raised with respect to non-renewal of the said licence on the date of accident. Moreover authentic testimony front the R.T.O. has also not been tendered nor any documentary certificate has been filed by respondent Insurance Company which was mandatory as per Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act to establish this aspect, so the learned Tribunal has erred while exonerating the Insurance Company from indemnifying the award. The authorities relied by the learned Counsel also supports the appellant so this Court finds that the Tribunal committed error while deciding issue No. 3, which was wrongly decided in favour of the Insurance Company and this Court while reversing the finding of issue No. 3 holds that the award amount is to be indemnified by the Insurance Company because the Insurance Company has failed to establish breach of condition of policy, so the liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened on the owner. 7. Learned Tribunal has awarded quantified amount of Rs. 80,000/- towards pecuniary loss without assessing any notional income of the deceased Navin Kumar, who was of 16 years old per evidence and also according to post mortem report of the deceased. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court while deciding the case of Ratan and others v. Rakesh Jain and others, 2014(1) WLC (Raj) 599 has enhanced the quantum of the award while assessing notional income of Rs. 30,000/- per month of 10 years' old deceased child and has held :- "Compensation-Death of girl aged 6 Deflation in value of Rupee taken judicial notice of-Notional Income set as Rs. 30,000/-, per year-Multiplier of 15, in view of age of parents 47 and 44 respectively - Rs. 5,00,000/- enhanced to Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also laid the methodology of notional income of the deceased child and has observed in Kishan Gopal & Anr. 30,000/-, per year-Multiplier of 15, in view of age of parents 47 and 44 respectively - Rs. 5,00,000/- enhanced to Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also laid the methodology of notional income of the deceased child and has observed in Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & Ors., MACD 2013 (SC) 289 at paras 17 and 18 as under :- " 17. In our considered view, the Tribunal has ignored certain relevant facts and evidence on record while considering the case of the appellants. The High Court though it has got power to re-appreciate the pleadings and evidence on record, has declined to do so and mechanically endorsed the findings of fact on contentious issue Nos. 1 and 2 after referring to certain stray sentences from the evidence of AW-1 and the F.I.R. and it has erroneously held that there is a contradiction between the F.I.R., the claim petition and the evidence of the appellants. It has concurred with the finding of fact recorded on the contentious issues and accepted dismissal of the petition. The concurrent findings of fact are erroneous and invalid and therefore, the same call for our interference in this appeal. The approach of the High Court to the claim of the appellants is very casual as it did not advert to the oral and documentary evidence placed on record on behalf of the appellants, particularly, in the absence of rebuttal evidence adduced by the Insurance Company, hence the same is liable to set aside and accordingly we set aside the same. 18. Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered together in favour of the appellants for the following reasons:- The Tribunal having answered the contentious issue No. 1, against the appellants in its judgment the same is concurred with by the High Court by assigning erroneous reasons and it has affirmed dismissal of the claim petition of the appellants holding that the accident did not take place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the first respondent and therefore the contentious issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative against the appellants and it has not awarded compensation in favour of the appellants. Since we have set aside the findings and reasons recorded by both the Tribunal and the High Court on the contentious issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative against the appellants and it has not awarded compensation in favour of the appellants. Since we have set aside the findings and reasons recorded by both the Tribunal and the High Court on the contentious issue Nos. 1 and 2 by recording our reasons in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment and we have answered the point in favour of the appellants and also examined the claim of the appellants to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellants as they have lost their affectionate 10 year old son. For this purpose, it would be necessary for us to refer to Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, at clause No. 6 which refers to notional income for compensation to those persons who had no income prior to accident. The relevant portion of clause No. 6 states as under: "6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident- ......... (a) Non-earning persons - Rs. 15,000/- p.a.’’ The aforesaid clause of the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, is considered by this Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., while examining the tortuous liability of the tort-feasor has examined the criteria for awarding compensation for death of children in accident between age group of 10 to 15 years and held in the above case that the compensation shall be awarded taking the contribution of the children to the family at Rs. 12,000/- p.a. and multiplier 11 has been applied taking the age of the father and then under the conventional heads the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,57,000/- was awarded in that case. After noting the submission made on behalf of TISCO in the said case that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be double as in its view the determination made was grossly inadequate and the observation was further made that loss of children is recoupable and no amount of money could compensate the parents. After noting the submission made on behalf of TISCO in the said case that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be double as in its view the determination made was grossly inadequate and the observation was further made that loss of children is recoupable and no amount of money could compensate the parents. Having regard to the environment from which the children referred to in that case were brought up, their parents being reasonably well-placed officials of TISCO, it was directed that the compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other words, it should be Rs. 1.5 lakhs to which under the conventional heads a sum of Rs. 50,000/- should be added and thus total amount in each case would be Rs. 2 lakhs. Further, in the case referred to supra it has observed that in so far as the children of age group between 10 to 15 years are concerned, they are all students of Class VI to Class X and are children of employees of TISCO and one of the children was employed in the Company in the said case having regard to the fact the contribution of the deceased child was taken Rs. 12,000/- p.a. appears to be on the lower side and held that the contribution of such children should be Rs. 24,000/- p.a. In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa's case with all fours is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years' old, who was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation which is an undisputed fact. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs. 15,000/-. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs. 15,000/-. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs. 30,000/- and further taking the young age of the parents, namely the mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and 50,000/- under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, which is referred to in Lara Wadhwa's case and the said amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we award Rs. 50,000/- under conventional heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons the said amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellants. The said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. by applying the law laid down in the case of Municipal Council of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, for the reason that the Insurance Company has been contesting the claim of the appellants from 1992-2013 without settling their legitimate claim for nearly about 21 years, if the Insurance Company had awarded and paid just and reasonable compensation to the appellants the same could have been either invested or kept in the fixed deposit, then the amount could have earned five times more than what is awarded today in this appeal. Therefore, awarding 9% interest on the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants is legally justified." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the fact of pre-depreciation and has assessed the notional income accordingly. 9. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be allowed and the compensation to which the appellants are entitled is calculated as under:- (i) Notional income of the deceased boy Rs. 30,000 per multiplier of 15 is applied as such 30,000 x 15 Rs. 4,50,000 annum (ii) Funeral expenses and love and affection Rs. 30,000 Total award Rs. 4,80,000 Award passed by the Tribunal (-) Rs. 92,000 Rs. 30,000 per multiplier of 15 is applied as such 30,000 x 15 Rs. 4,50,000 annum (ii) Funeral expenses and love and affection Rs. 30,000 Total award Rs. 4,80,000 Award passed by the Tribunal (-) Rs. 92,000 Rs. 3,88,000 in addition to Tribunal's award Thus, the appellants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,80,000/- in total. Accordingly the claimants-appellants are further entitled to Rs. 3,88,000/- and they are entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment. The amount already paid in terms of the interim award or otherwise shall be adjusted. The respondent No. 3 United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay the aforesaid amount with interest as above within a period of two months from today through bank draft in favour of the claimants or deposit the same with the Tribunal. The claimants shall be at liberty to receive and seek disbursement of the award amount from the Tribunal. The Tribunal will be free to hear and disburse the said amount to the appellants deducing to safeguard the interest of the appellants. The appeal is allowed as above. There is no order as to costs.