JUDGMENT 1. This order will govern disposal of MA Nos. 1666/18, 1670/18, 1674/18, 1675/18 & 1676/18, as it has been submitted by counsel for parties that all these appeals involve same issue. 2. By these appeals the appellants/claimants have challenged the award dated 27/10/2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dhar seeking enhancement of compensation amount. Necessary details of these appeals are as under: Appeal No. Claim Case no. Name of deceased Amount awarded by the tribunal 1666/2018 1000103/15 Sohan 2,25,000/- 1670/2018 1000101/15 Rahul 1,75,000/- 1674/2018 1000108/15 Dipal 1,25,000/- 1675/2018 30094/2015 Param Bhil 2,00,000/- 1676/2018 1000105/15 Killu 2,25,000/- 3. Appellants had filed the claim petition before the tribunal with the plea that deceased were travelling in Eicher Vehicle No. MP-09-GE-7385 on 22/5/2012 when the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the Eicher Vehicle No. MP-09-KD-8681 driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. In the said accident, the death of aforesaid persons had taken place. Accordingly the claim petitions were filed. 4. In claim petitions, the driver and owner of the Eicher vehicle No. MP-09-KD-8681 remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent no. 3 insurer of Eicher Vehicle No. MP- 09-KD-8681 had filed the reply and had denied the liability and had also taken the plea of violation of policy condition. 6. The respondents no. 4 & 5 had also filed reply and denied the claim and had raised the plea that vehicle was duly insured. 7. Respondent no.6 insurance company i.e. the insurer of vehicle no. MP-09-GE-7385 had also filed the reply and had denied the liability. 8. The claims tribunal by permitting the parties to lead evidence and after examining the same had found that accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle MP-09-KD-8681 by the respondent no.1. The tribunal found that there was no violation of policy condition. It further found that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of vehicle No. MP-09-GE-7385. The tribunal has accordingly fixed the liability upon the respondent no.3 insurance company and ascertained the compensation amount as above. 9. In all aforesaid appeals, the deceased were the minor children. In Misc. Appeal No. 1666/18, the deceased Sohan has been found to be aged about 13 years. The Tribunal has awarded the lump-sum amount of Rs. 2,25,000/-. 10. The tribunal has accordingly fixed the liability upon the respondent no.3 insurance company and ascertained the compensation amount as above. 9. In all aforesaid appeals, the deceased were the minor children. In Misc. Appeal No. 1666/18, the deceased Sohan has been found to be aged about 13 years. The Tribunal has awarded the lump-sum amount of Rs. 2,25,000/-. 10. Supreme court in the matter of Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others reported in 2013 ACJ 2594 has considered the case of 10 years of old child in respect of an accident which had taken pace in 1992 and has assessed the notional income of Rs. 30,000 and applied the multiplier of 15 on the basis of judgment in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and accordingly has calculated the compensation amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- and has awarded Rs. 50,000/- on the conventional heads for loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and last rites in terms of the judgment in the case of General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas reported in 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) . Hence a total sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was awarded in that case. 11. The present case (MA No.1666/18) also stands on the same footing. Deceased Sohan at the time of accident was aged about 13 years therefore after applying the multiplier of 15 on the notional income of Rs. 30,000/-, the compensation amount comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and by adding Rs. 50,000/- under the other conventional heads, the total compensation amount comes to Rs. 5,00,000/- whereas the tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-. 12. Hence MA No. 1666/2018 is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/-. 13. In Misc. Appeal No. 1675/2018 the deceased is Parambhil aged about 10 years and tribunal has awarded the lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 14. In view of the judgment in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) the total compensation alongwith the amount under the other conventional heads, in this case also comes to Rs. 5,00,000/-. 15. Hence MA No. 1675/2018 is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 16. In Misc. Appeal No. 1676/2018 the deceased is Kilu aged about 15 years and tribunal has awarded the lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/-. 5,00,000/-. 15. Hence MA No. 1675/2018 is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 16. In Misc. Appeal No. 1676/2018 the deceased is Kilu aged about 15 years and tribunal has awarded the lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/-. 17. In view of the judgment in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) the total compensation alongwith the amount under the other conventional heads, in this case also comes to Rs. 5,00,000/-. 18. Hence MA No. 1676/2018 is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/-. 19. In Misc. Appeal No. 1670/2018 the compensation has been claimed for death of Rahul who was aged about 6 years and tribunal has awarded the lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/-. 20. In view of the judgment in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) the total compensation amount alongwith the amount under the other conventional heads, in this case also comes to Rs. 5,00,000/-. 21. Hence MA No. 1670/2018 is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/-. 22. In Misc. Appeal No. 1674/2018 the compensation has been claimed for death of Dipal who was aged about 2 years and tribunal has awarded the lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-. 23. Having regard to the age of deceased and considering the circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/-. 24. Hence MA No. 1674/2018 is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount by a further sum of Rs. 3,75,000/-. 25. Hence the appeals are partly allowed. The compensation amount in MA No. 1666/18 is enhanced by sum of Rs.2,75,000/-; MA No.1670/18, Rs.3,25,000/-; MA No. 1674/18, Rs. 3,75,000/-; MA No. 1675/18, Rs. 3,00,000/-; & MA No. 1676/18 is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/-. The enhanced amount will bear interest at the same rate as awarded by the tribunal and will be governed by the same conditions as contained in the award of the tribunal. C.C. as per rules.