JUDGMENT : DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI, J. 1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) and claimants have preferred these appeals under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988') against the impugned judgment and award dt. 3.7.2012 passed by judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 205/2009 (Radheshyam Namdev & Ors. vs. Hemant & Ors), whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- to the claimant/appellant No. 1 & 2 and against the non-claimants alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 2. The appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as 'RSRTC) has preferred this appeal with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and award, and to dismiss the claim petition. The claimants have preferred the appeal for enhancement of compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case are that one Manoj @ Golu aged 15 years died in an accident occurred on 19.10.2009 at about 2:30 PM, when he was going from Baran to Nahargarh in Bus No. RJ-28-P-0520. The bus was driven by non-claimant No. 1-Hemant in a rash and negligent manner. The bus was owned by RSRTC. According to the claim petition, the deceased-Manoj was 17 years of age and he was employed with J.K. Tailor, Guna (M.P.) as a tailor and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Claimants including father, mother and four sisters of the deceased, have preferred the claim petition against the non-claimants for compensation of Rs. 27,60,000/-. 4. Non-claimant No. 1-Hemant opposed the claim petition by filing reply thereto denying all the averments of the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 5. Non-claimants No. 2 & 3 also opposed the claim petition by filing reply thereto denying all the material averments of the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 6. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues. 7. In support of the claim petition, claimants examined three witnesses and exhibited certain documents. No evidence has been produced by the non-claimants. 8. 6. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues. 7. In support of the claim petition, claimants examined three witnesses and exhibited certain documents. No evidence has been produced by the non-claimants. 8. After hearing the parties, learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants No. 1 & 2 in the manner that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its' driver i.e. non-claimant-Hemant, resultantly Manoj @ Golu sitting in the bus sustained injuries and died. Issue No. 2 has been decided in favour of the claimants. Issues No. 3 & 4 have been decided in favour of the claimant No. 1 & 2 and against the non-claimants in the manner that the claimant No. 3 to 6 are not entitled to get any compensation as they were not dependent on the deceased and the non-claimants would pay Rs. 3,75,000/- as compensation to the claimant No. 1 & 2 alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 9. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, non-claimants as well as claimants have preferred these appeals. 10. Learned counsel for RSRTC submits that the deceased-Manoj was only 15 years aged at the time of the accident and it is not proved that he was an earning member, therefore, maximum compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- ought to have been awarded, whereas the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- to the claimant No. 1 & 2, thus the impugned judgment and award should be modified accordingly. Reference has been given by learned counsel of the case of Nana Devi (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Gurumel Singh & Ors. reported in (2012) 1 CCR (Raj.) 435. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that there is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased to be 15 years at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time. Learned counsel also submits that even it is considered that the deceased was not an earning member of the family, compensation ought to have been assessed taking into consideration the notional income @ 3000/- Rs. The learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time. Learned counsel also submits that even it is considered that the deceased was not an earning member of the family, compensation ought to have been assessed taking into consideration the notional income @ 3000/- Rs. per month and has given reference of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. vs. Lala & Ors. reported in 2014 RAR 289 (SC) and Lata Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 . 12. I gave my anxious consideration to rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 13. There is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased to be 15 years at the time of the accident. 14. With regard to income of the deceased, pleaded case of the claimants is that the deceased was a serving craftsman, employed with J.K. Tailor, Guna (M.P.) and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. In this respect, claimant-Radheyshyam (A.W. 1) deposed that his deceased son Manoj @ Golu was doing tailoring work in Guna and was employed with J.K. Tailor. It is also stated that the deceased was employed on salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month and they lived by his salary. In cross-examination, the witness stated that J.K. Tailor belongs to my 'sadhoo' (Brother-in-Law). The claimants did not produce any appointment letter of the deceased or any certificate issued by his employer or Bank Pass-Book of the deceased or any other documentary evidence to prove occupation and income of the deceased. Even, employer of the deceased was not examined nor any efforts were made to summon him to give evidence nor any explanation has been offered for not producing the employer in evidence. Thus, the claimants failed to prove the occupation and income of the deceased, as stated in the claim petition. 15. It is pertinent to note that without making any discussion and giving finding with regard to income of the deceased, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,60,000/- compensation in lump sum, Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses, to the claimant No. 1 & 2, considering age of the deceased to be 15 years. 16. 15. It is pertinent to note that without making any discussion and giving finding with regard to income of the deceased, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,60,000/- compensation in lump sum, Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses, to the claimant No. 1 & 2, considering age of the deceased to be 15 years. 16. In Nana Devi vs. Gurumel Singh (supra), Coordinate Bench of this Court awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- where the age of the deceased child was upto 5 years, Rs. 2,00,000/- where the age of the deceased child was more than 5 years but not more than 10 years and Rs. 2,50,000/- where the age of the deceased child was more than 10 years but not more than 15 years. 17. In Lata Wadhwa's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded Rs. 2,50,000/- in the case of child between the age group of 5-10 years. In the case of children between the age group of 10-15 years, Supreme Court accepting the contribution of Rs. 24,000/- per annum, of the children to the family and applying multiplier of 15, awarded Rs. 3,60,000/- and adding Rs. 50,000/- in conventional head, total compensation of Rs. 4,10,000/- was awarded. 18. In Kishan Gopal & Anr. vs. Lala & Ors. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically after the year 1994, when notional income of non-earning member of the family was fixed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. It was observed that the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed to the family by working hard, it would be just and reasonable to take his notional income at Rs. 30,000/- per annum, and further applying the multiplier of 15 taking age of the mother to be 36, awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000/- X 15 = Rs. 4,50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc. total Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum to the appellants from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. 19. In the present case also, the deceased Manoj @ Golu was 15 years aged at the time of the accident. Thus, applying the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishan Gopal (supra), it would be just and reasonable to take notional income of the deceased at Rs. 19. In the present case also, the deceased Manoj @ Golu was 15 years aged at the time of the accident. Thus, applying the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishan Gopal (supra), it would be just and reasonable to take notional income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/- per annum and taking age of the mother, who was 40 years old at the time of accident, by applying multiplier of 15 to the multiplicand, compensation amount comes to Rs. 4,50,000/-. I also deem it appropriate to award Rs. 50,000/- under conventional heads. In my considered view, the said amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to the appellant No. 1 & 2. 20. I also deem it appropriate to award interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment, by applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Kishna Gopal (supra), Municipal Council of Delhi vs. Association of Victim of Upltaar Tragedy reported in (2011) 14 SCC 481 , Kan Singh & Anr. vs. Tukaram & Ors. reported in 2015 (1) TAC 337 (SC) and Smt. Neeta vs. Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors. vs. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur reported in 2015 (1) RAR (SC) 52. 21. We find no error in finding of the learned Tribunal that the claimant No. 3 to 6 are not entitled to get any compensation, as they were not dependents on the deceased. 22. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the non-claimant-RSRTC is dismissed and the appeal preferred by the claimants is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award is modified enhancing the compensation. The non-claimant/respondents shall deposit the awarded amount of compensation Rs. 5,00,000/- jointly and severally, with the learned Tribunal after deducting the amount already paid, if any, within 8 weeks from receipt of copy of this judgment. The claimant/appellant No. 1 & 2 are also entitled to receive interest on awarded amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. Appeal preferred by the claimant/appellant No. 3 to 6 is also dismissed.