JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.). None appears for the respondent No.2, despite the name of learned counsel is shown in the cause list. 2. The appellant/claimant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and award passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC) No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No.48/2010, dated 04.05.2016, whereby the claimant has been granted an award of Rs. 87,000/- (rupees eighty seven thousand) only for the death of her 15 years old minor son, in a road traffic accident. 3. Brief case of the claimant is that on 29.10.2009, at about 4:30 P.M., while her son was proceeding towards Nehru Stadium by a bicycle, on reaching the A.T. Road at Panbazar, a vehicle bearing Regn. No.AS-01-Y-7233 (Tata Mobile), driving by its driver in a rush and negligent manner, knocked down her son from backside. As a result her son sustained serious injuries on his person and succumbed to his injuries on the same day. A police case was also registered against the driver of the offending vehicle vide Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No.605/09, under Section 279/304A IPC. 4. The deceased was working as a mechanic having monthly income of Rs. 4,000/- and his mother preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal praying for compensation for pre-mature death of her son and loss of future prospect of the life of the deceased. 5. In response to the notice, issued by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle contested the case by filing written statement. The driver of the vehicle did not turn up before the Tribunal for which the case proceeded ex-parte against him. 6. In her written statement, the owner of the vehicle admitted the ownership of the aforesaid offending vehicle but deny the liability to pay the compensation. It is stated by the owner that the vehicle was under the valid insurance policy when the accident took place and the compensation if any, is to be paid by the insurer of the vehicle. 7. It is stated by the owner that the vehicle was under the valid insurance policy when the accident took place and the compensation if any, is to be paid by the insurer of the vehicle. 7. The Insurance Company in their written statement contended that the claim petition is not maintainable as there is no loss of dependency of the claimant, as the victim was a minor and question of having income on his part is also denied. Further it is contended that the claimant is to prove the accident in strict manner and the liability of the Insurance Company is always subject to fulfillment of conditions of the insurance policy. 8. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the alleged accident on 29/10/09 at about 4-30 p.m., at Paltanbazar, caused due to rush and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle No.AS-01/Y-7233? (2) Whether the claimant's son Pallav Thakuria died as a result of the said accident? (3) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation for the death of her son in the said accident, if yes, what will be the just and reasonable amount and who the opposite parties, the amount is liable to pay to the claimant? 9. In course of the proceeding, the claimant examined two witnesses including herself and she has reiterated the statement given in the claim petition. The claimant in her evidence has exhibited some relevant documents pertaining to the accident like Form 54, FIR, charge-sheet, post mortem report and the medical certificate given by the GMCH, in support of contention that the deceased died out of the injury sustained in the accident. 10. One police officer was examined in support of the documents regarding filing of the case with regard to the accident that took place on 29.10.2009. 11. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Tribunal came to a finding that the accident took place due to rush and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver and the deceased who was a student of Class-IX, died out of such vehicular accident. 12. While assessing the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal was of view that at the relevant time of accident, the deceased was a student and his father was an earning member of the family. 12. While assessing the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal was of view that at the relevant time of accident, the deceased was a student and his father was an earning member of the family. Although he opined that the multipliers in this case should be 15, but has awarded compensation under the head of love and affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, etc, totaling Rs. 87,000/-, to be paid to the claimant. Accordingly, as the offending vehicle was insured with the opposite party Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident, so the Insurance Company was directed to indemnify the amount of compensation to the claimant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. 13. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid award, the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that a very meager amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal which is not tenable and is against the established principles of law. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant has urged before this Court that the learned member has failed to appreciate that the word compensation is not all about the loss of dependency but is a word which is much more comprehensive in the meaning than a mere loss of dependency. 14. The learned Tribunal also erred while awarding the proper compensation despite holding that the appropriate multipliers will be 15 and also failed to take into consideration the benefit of future prospect for such untimely death of the minor son of the claimant. Accordingly, prayer has been made to enhance the award in proper perspective of law. 15. The learned senior counsel Mr. S. Dutta has however tried to impress upon the Court that the learned Tribunal has properly taken note of the fact that the claimant (mother) was not dependent upon the minor son while her husband was still alive and is an earning member of the family. 16. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and perused the entire materials on record and the LCR. 17. The present claim petition was preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the claimant has proved the required component that the deceased died out of rush and negligent driving of the vehicle and the deceased was a 15 years old minor boy. 18. 17. The present claim petition was preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the claimant has proved the required component that the deceased died out of rush and negligent driving of the vehicle and the deceased was a 15 years old minor boy. 18. There is no dispute as regards the age of the deceased that he was a minor. As per Clause 6(A) of the Second Schedule, the income of non-earning person is Rs. 15,000/- per annum. As per the evidence of the claimant, the deceased was 15 years of age. So considering his tender age, his income can reasonably be taken as Rs. 15,000/- per annum (national income) and the applicable multipliers in the present case would be 15. Thus the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,25,000/-. As the deceased had no income of his own, no such deduction can be made from the aforesaid amount in determining the compensation. That apart, the claimant is also entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- as funeral expenses, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) AIR SC 5157. Thus the claimant being the mother of the deceased is entitled to get an award of Rs. 2,55,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty five thousands). 19. The learned Tribunal erred in law while calculating the compensation which is now modified accordingly. 20. Accordingly, the claimant/appellant is entitled to the modified amount of award as mentioned above, which shall carry interest @7% per annum from the date of filing till realization. The respondent Insurance Company will deposit the awarded amount before the Registry of this Court, within six weeks from today, after adjusting the earlier paid amount, if any. The claimant/appellant will be at liberty to withdraw the said amount, after proper identification by the learned engaged counsel. 21. With the above modification in the award, the appeal stands allowed. 22. Send back the LCR immediately with a copy of this order.