JUDGMENT: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2011 in M.V.O.P. No.239 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore (for short ‘the tribunal’), the claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P. 3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/-for the death of Maddina Rajeswari, who is the claimant's daughter. The said Rajeswari died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.06.2007. She will be referred to as 'the deceased. Her daughter was aged about seven years by the date of the accident. 4. The claimant's case is that she joined her daughter in Viswabharati School, Gudur, on 12.06.2007. On 13.06.2007, she sent her daughter (deceased herein) to the school in a school van bearing No. A.P. 07 T 3932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle), and then she went to Engineering College where she works as a cook. She returned home in the evening and found her daughter lying unconscious. On enquiry, she learnt that while her daughter was in the foot-board, the driver moved the offending vehicle, thereby she fell down and the head fell on the stone and she rolled into a side canal. The claimant took her daughter to Bollineni super specialty hospital. From there, she was discharged and brought back to Gudur to admit her to Government Hospital; the deceased passed away. 5. The 1st respondent filed a written statement contending that the offending vehicle owned by the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent; there is no rashness or negligence on the part of the offending vehicle’s driver, the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased herself. 6. The 2nd respondent filed its written statement contending that the driver of the offending vehicle is not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the school bus and the deceased while playing in the school fell on the ground and her head hit on the stone, and thereby she received a head injury and died while undergoing treatment. The 2nd respondent also filed an additional written statement contending that at the time of the accident, one B.Srinivasulu was driving the offending vehicle. The 2nd respondent also filed an additional written statement contending that at the time of the accident, one B.Srinivasulu was driving the offending vehicle. The Additional Licencing Authority, Nellore, issued a driving licence. It is further contended that as per the driving licence, the driver is authorized to drive a light motor vehicle of non-transport only, and the school bus is a passenger-carrying vehicle; hence the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. To prove the claimant's case, during the trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W.1 got examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.3. 8. After appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle's driver. It awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 7% per annum against the respondents. 9. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has given an incorrect finding that the deceased had just started attending school. The claimant will depend upon her daughter after the deceased attains majority; hence she is entitled to compensation. He further contends that the Tribunal has taken into consideration that the deceased was not earning anything and failed to appreciate the fact that the claimant is a widow and no one is left for her except the deceased to take care of her in future because of her daughter’s death she became orphan. It cannot be compensable in any way. The Tribunal is incorrect in awarding only Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.3,00,000/- and prayed to allow the appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. The relationship between the deceased and the claimants is not disputed. The claimant relied on Ex.A.1-attested copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A.5-attested copy of the charge sheet to show the involvement of the offending bus in the accident. The claimant relied on Ex.A.2-photostat copy of the postmortem examination report to show that the deceased's death occurred due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimant relied on Ex.A.1-attested copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A.5-attested copy of the charge sheet to show the involvement of the offending bus in the accident. The claimant relied on Ex.A.2-photostat copy of the postmortem examination report to show that the deceased's death occurred due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal's finding regarding the manner of the accident, negligence of the driver and caretaker of the offending vehicle, death of the daughter of the claimant (deceased) due to injuries sustained in the accident are not disputed either by filing an appeal or cross-objection. Hence said findings have attained finality. Thus, it is unnecessary to narrate the factual aspects of the case. 13. Now the point for determination is whether the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 14. Admittedly, the deceased was about 7 years as of the date of the accident. One day before the accident, the claimant admitted her daughter (deceased) into school one day before the accident. As the deceased was a non-earning person at the time of the accident, the Tribunal should have considered the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per annum. 15. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs National Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors, 2020 ACJ 2211 . As seen from the judgment, in the said case, Tribunal assessed the notional income of the minor child. However, the Tribunal deducted 50% towards personal expenditure. Without disturbing the said finding, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed, in paragraph 13, held that the income of the minor child is incapable of precise fixation and observed further that they find no reason to interfere with the assessed notional income of the second deceased. Considering the grant of the future prospectus for the deceased child aged about ten years, in R.K.Malik and others vs Kiran Paul, 2009 A.C.J. 1924, the Hon'ble Apex Court held, in paragraph 31, as follows: “31. A forceful submission has been made by the learned Counsels appearing for the claimants-appellants that both the Tribunal and the High Court failed to consider the claims of the appellants concerning the future prospects of the children. It has been submitted that the evidence with regard to the same has been ignored by the Courts below. A forceful submission has been made by the learned Counsels appearing for the claimants-appellants that both the Tribunal and the High Court failed to consider the claims of the appellants concerning the future prospects of the children. It has been submitted that the evidence with regard to the same has been ignored by the Courts below. On perusal of the evidence on record, we find merit in the such submission that the Courts below have overlooked that aspect of the matter while granting compensation. It is well settled legal principle that in addition to awarding compensation for pecuniary losses, it must also grant compensation with regard to the prospects of the children. It is incumbent upon the Courts to consider the said aspect while awarding compensation." 16. In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the Apex Court held that where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to a bachelor's, usually, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Further observed that taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, the passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in the price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects. 17. By following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajendra Singh’s case (Supra1), R.K.Malik’s case (Supra2) and Pranay Sethi’s case (Supra3), this Court considers that 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses and 40% of the income to be added towards future prospectus. On deduction of 50% of the annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased, an amount of Rs.7,500/- can be considered, and 40% of the annual income under the future head prospects arrived at Rs.3,000/-. In total, this Court thought the annual income at Rs.10,500/- (Rs.7,500/- +3,000/-). The Tribunal has applied the multiplier 15' to assess the loss of dependency, which need not be disturbed; it would come to Rs.10,500/- x 15 = 1,57,500/-. The claimant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.16,500/-towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs.44,000/-towards Parental consortium. The claimants are entitled to Rs.2,18,000/- (1,57,500+16,500+ 44,000). 18. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier 15' to assess the loss of dependency, which need not be disturbed; it would come to Rs.10,500/- x 15 = 1,57,500/-. The claimant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.16,500/-towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs.44,000/-towards Parental consortium. The claimants are entitled to Rs.2,18,000/- (1,57,500+16,500+ 44,000). 18. The learned counsel for the claimant also contended that the Tribunal had granted interest @ 7% per annum without considering the prevailing bank rate of interest. The accident occurred in 2007, and the overall bank interest rate was more than 12% per annum at that time and requested the Court to grant reasonable interest. 19. The granting of rate of interest depends on the facts of the case and prevailing bank rate of interest. There is no material placed before the Court showing the prevailing bank rate of interest as on the date of accident as such; it can not hold that awarding the interest rate at 7% per annum is not just and reasonable as the tribunal, at its discretion granted such rate of interest in the facts of the case. There is nothing to show that tribunal has not exercised its jurisdiction and no interference needs to be required. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,18,000/- (Rupees two lakh eighteen thousand only) with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. The respondents shall deposit the compensation within two months of receiving a copy of this order. 21. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.