JUDGMENT : K. SOMASHEKAR, J. 1. Though this appeal is listed for admission, but with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent No.1, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.6.2013 passed in MVC No.4319/2012 on the file of the XXIII Additional Small Cause Judge & XXI ACMM, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- with interest at 6% p.a, which is found to be inadequate and also on the lower side. Therefore, this appeal requires to be interfered with the judgment rendered by the Tribunal and reappreciate the entire evidence of PW1 Hanumantharayappa, who is stated to be the father of the deceased. The evidence of PW1 and so also the documents at Exs.P1 to P11 produced by the claimants in order to establish their case against the respondent have been appreciated by the Tribunal. 3. It is evident in the claim petition that on 4.6.2012 at about 7.20 a.m, the deceased, Ajay was proceeding on his motorcycle on B H Road. When he reached near Ganganagar, Gowribidanur Town, the driver of lorry bearing Regn. No.GJ:06:V-7025 drove the same in a greater speed and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, Ajay, as a result of which, the said Ajay was thrown out on the road and the wheel of the lorry ran over his head and he succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The deceased, Ajay was aged about 17 years at the time of accident occurred on 4.6.2012 and was a student. 4. The claimants said to be the parents of the deceased, Ajay. They have undergone depression and also mental agony for the death of their son. The deceased was a distinction student. These are the averments made in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal seeking compensation from the respondents. 5. In pursuance of the summons issued in the claim petition against the respondents, the 2nd respondent was placed ex parte and he did not participate in the claim petition in MVC No.4319/2012 through out the proceedings. However, respondent No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The issuance of policy in respect of offending lorry is admitted. However, respondent No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The issuance of policy in respect of offending lorry is admitted. These are the grounds urged in the objections to the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition made by the claimants. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the issues and given findings based on the evidence of PW1, who is said to be the father of the deceased, Ajay and so also the documents at Exs.P1 to P11 produced by the claimants in order to establish their case relating to untimely death of the deceased, Ajay being the college going student. The offending vehicle was ran over on his head, as a result of that, the said Ajay succumbed to the injuries at the spot itself. 7. On the part of respondents, no evidence has been let in. But the insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. 8. On evaluating the evidence placed by PW1 and so also PW2 as well as evidence at Exs.P1 to P11, Ex.P3 is the mahazar, Ex.P7 is the postmortem report and Exs.P9 and P10 are the marks cards. The claimants being the parents of deceased filed a claim petition seeking a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of their son, Ajay in the road traffic accident. 9. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced, awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of argument that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence of PW1 said to be the father of the deceased, Ajay and also not considered the untimely death of Ajay as the offending lorry was ran over his head and made him to succumbed to the injuries at the spot itself. The Tribunal has rightly discussed about the judgment rendered by this Court and also Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, it requires intervention of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal by re-appreciating the evidence of PW1 and so also the documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P11 produced by the claimants. These are the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants and sought suitable compensation. 11. Therefore, it requires intervention of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal by re-appreciating the evidence of PW1 and so also the documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P11 produced by the claimants. These are the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants and sought suitable compensation. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun vs- National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 14 SCC 396 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Section 166 of MV Act relating to just and fair compensation. A 12 year old child suffering disability treated as inpatient for a period 58 days and also undergone operation six months after discharge, discomforts/disabilities to the extent of 34% of right lower limb and 18% to whole body were evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.63,500/- under the heads of pain and suffering, inconvenience to parents, medical expenses, loss of future amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment expenses, future surgery enhanced by High Court mainly under the head of 'loss of future amenities'. The said judgment is applicable to the present factual case on hand, whereas in this case, Ajay said to be the college going student, aged about 17 years, met with an accident and he succumbed to the injuries at the spot itself. Therefore, the claimants have not only lost the income, but they have lost their son, Ajay said to be the college going student and also the distinction student. To that effect, a marks card has been produced. The said fact has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal in order to award suitable compensation. 12. Learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another vs- Lal and others, (2014) 1 SCC 244 . In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para-18 that the Second Schedule to Section 163A of the MV Act, 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. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred the judgment of Sarla Verma vs- Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 relating to the multiplier. These two judgments are applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred the judgment of Sarla Verma vs- Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 relating to the multiplier. These two judgments are applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,75,000/-, which is found to be inadequate. The Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective and also did not go through the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. These are the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the appellants. 13. On contrary, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri L Sreekanta Rao has taken me through the evidence of PW1, who is none other than the father of the deceased, Ajay. The parents of the deceased, Ajay filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation from the respondents suitably as the driver of the offending lorry drove the same in a greater speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, Ajay, as a result of which, the deceased was thrown out on the road and succumbed to the injuries at the spot itself. The claimants have not produced any documents to show that the deceased was a minor. The deceased, Ajay was aged about 17 years as on the date of accident. The same is evident from the SSLC marks card marked as Ex.P9 wherein his date of birth is entered as 26.7.1995. The same is not disputed. Ex.P10 is the marks card issued by BGS Pre University College, Gowribidanur wherein the deceased passed first year PUC at first class during March, 2012. 14. Based upon the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. The same is found to be suitably awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, in this appeal, it does not call for interference. However, the learned counsel has fairly submitted that though the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant for enhancement of compensation suitably, it cannot be said that unless the evidence has been produced by the claimants seeking suitable compensation. These are the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company. 15. However, the learned counsel has fairly submitted that though the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant for enhancement of compensation suitably, it cannot be said that unless the evidence has been produced by the claimants seeking suitable compensation. These are the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company. 15. There is no dispute about the death of deceased due to the injuries sustained in the accident by offending lorry bearing Regn No.GJ-06/V-7025 wherein the driver of the offending vehicle by rash and negligent driving hit the motorcycle on which the deceased was proceeding. The same is clear from Ex.P6/inquest report issued by the concerned authorities and also Ex.P7, the post mortem report held over the dead body of the deceased. There is no dispute that the claimants, who stated to be the parents, have lost their son viz: Ajay aged about 17 years and college going student. Based upon the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Therefore, it requires to be re-appreciated the evidence of PW1 and so also the documentary evidence produced at Exs.P1 to 11. 16. Keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another vs- Lala and others, (2014) 1 SCC 244 taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per year and further taking the young age of the parents, namely the mother, who was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident, and applying the multiplier 15, the compensation towards loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.30,000 x 15) and Rs.50,000/- is granted towards conventional heads totaling to Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of dependency. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs- Nanu Ram,2018 SCC Online SC 1546 has held as follows: "Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit." In view of the said ruling, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each is granted to the parents of the deceased towards 'filial consortium' which works out to Rs.80,000/-. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- as against Rs.3,75,000/-. The enhanced compensation is of Rs.2,05,000/-. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) Appeal preferred by the appellants is hereby allowed in part. (ii) The appellants are entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. (iii) The respondent No.1/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the concerned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Insofar as the enhanced compensation is concerned, the same shall be in terms of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal.