JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the award dated 26.04.2007 in MVOP.No.317/2004 passed by the Chairman, MACT-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kakinada (for short, ‘Tribunal’), the claimants preferred the instant appeal. 2. The factual matrix of the case is thus: (a) The case of the claimants is that on 16.02.2004 at 01.30 p.m., their little son Venkatesh, aged about 8 years, who was studying in Margadarshi Convent, Tallarevu, while coming home to have lunch was hit by a lorry bearing No.AP 7W 1319 and met with instantaneous death. It is averred that the accident was occurred due to the fault of lorry driver. On these pleas, the claimants filed MVOP.No.317/2004 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against respondents 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending lorry respectively. (b) Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. (c) Respondent No.3 – insurance company filed counter and opposed the claim denying the petition averments. It was contended that accident was occurred due to the fault of the deceased himself but not the lorry driver. It is further disputed that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and exorbitant. (d) During trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of the claimants. Ex.A1 is the FIR in Crime No.182004 of Coringa Police Station. Ex.A2 is the copy of post-mortem report. Ex.A3 is the copy of inquest report. Policy copy filed by 3rd respondent is marked as Ex.B1. (e) The lower tribunal considering the above evidence on record held that driver of the lorry was responsible for the accident and awarded Rs.1,55,000/- as compensation with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit against respondents 1 to 3 under different heads as follows: Compensation for loss of future earnings of the deceased Rs.1,50,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.5,000 Total Rs.1,55,000 Hence, the appeal by the claimants challenging the quantum of compensation as low and insufficient. 3. The parities in this appeal are referred as they stood before the lower tribunal. 4. Heard arguments of Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for appellants and Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for rd respondentinsurance company. 5. 3. The parities in this appeal are referred as they stood before the lower tribunal. 4. Heard arguments of Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for appellants and Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for rd respondentinsurance company. 5. Severely fulminating the award in so far as granting Rs.1,50,000for the loss of future earnings of the deceased, learned counsel for appellants would argue that the deceased was a minor boy aged about 8 years and after coming of age, he had every possibility of earning decent income to support his parents and therefore, the tribunal was not justified in fixing his notional income at Rs.15,000/-to compute the compensation. He would argue that the probable income of the deceased should be something more. 6. Nextly, learned counsel argued that the parents of the deceased lost their tender aged son and his death is a loss to their estate and therefore, they deserve compensation under the head loss of estate. He would also argue that the claimants have lost the future love and affection of the boy after he grew up. On that count also, they deserve compensation. Learned counsel thus prayed to re assess the compensation. 7. Learned counsel for 3rd respondent on the other hand supported the award contending that the same is just and reasonable one and thus prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is: Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable or requires enhancement? 9. Point: I have given my anxious consideration to the above arguments. Admittedly, the deceased boy was aged about 8 years by the date of the unfortunate accident which put an end to the dreams of his parents. Be that it may, so far as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned, the lower tribunal following the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pittala Ramulu, 2007 ACJ 1003 , notionally fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000and after deducting rd there from towards personal expenditure of the deceased, multiplied the balance amount with the multiplier 15, arrived at Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.10,000x 15) as compensation for loss of future earnings of the deceased. Since, the above calculation is made basing on the decision of this Court, I find no irregularity or illegality therein. Therefore, compensation cannot be reassessed under this head. 10. Since, the above calculation is made basing on the decision of this Court, I find no irregularity or illegality therein. Therefore, compensation cannot be reassessed under this head. 10. So far as the other arguments advanced by learned counsel for claimants are concerned, as rightly submitted by him, the claimants have lost their tender aged son in a budding stage. His death is certainly a loss to the estate of the claimants as they lost their future supporter in their old age. Similarly, they also lost his love and affection. Therefore, on these two counts, the claimants legitimately deserve compensation. Therefore, the claimants are awarded Rs.25,000/- each under the heads loss of estate and loss of love and affection. 11. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimant under different heads is detailed as below: Compensation for loss of future earnings of the deceased Rs.1,50,000 Funeral expenses Rs.5,000 Compensation for loss of estate and compensation for loss of love and affection Rs.50,000 Total Rs.2,05,000 Thus, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.50,000 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed and ordered as follows: (i) The compensation is enhanced by Rs.50,000/- (Rs.2,05,000/--Rs.1,55,000/-) with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of O.P till the date of realisation. (ii) Respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No costs.