JUDGMENT : Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, the appellant – original claimant preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under :- On 06.04.2006, the son of the appellants – claimants viz :- Dattu, a boy around 15 years studying in class-IX was proceeding by road near Sakhara Pati, Latur at that time, Jeep bearing registration No.MH-24/F-3214 gave dash to Dattu, who died on the spot due to injury sustained by him. The said vehicle was driven by respondent no.1- Shri Kamlakar Kadam and owned by respondent no.2 – Hanumant Nagtilak. The said vehicle was insured with respondent no.3. Crime was registered against respondent no.1. 3. Appellants – original claimants filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur (for short, “the Tribunal”) for getting compensation. Considering the evidence on record and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal has awarded compensation. The said judgment and order is under challenge. 4. Heard Mr.P.S. Chavan, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.R.P. Bhumkar, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr.S.V. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for respondent no.3. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has not applied the multiplier method while awarding the compensation. Deceased Dattu was more than 15 years old. The Tribunal should have applied the multiplier method for ensuring the just compensation. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation for pecuniary losses, future prospects as well as other expenses like funeral expenses. Hence requested to allow the appeal. The learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another Vs Lala and others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 , M.S. Grewal Vs. Deep Chand Sood reported in (2001) 8 SCC 151 and the judgment of Kerla High Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Kandamkulathy Towers, M.G. Road, Ernakulam, Represented by its Duty Authorised Officer V/s Sarasu, W/o Gangadharan, Chillikkottathil House, Kolothumparambu, Kedamangalam Kara, Parvavur village and others reported in 2020 SCC Online Ker. 20473. 6. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects while passing the judgment. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was earning some amount. 20473. 6. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects while passing the judgment. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was earning some amount. The deceased was 16 years old school going boy, hence the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 7. The learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 supported the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent no.3. 8. Perused the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. 9. Admittedly the Tribunal has not considered notional income of deceased nor multiplier is applied while awarding compensation. A lumsum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded as compensation. Hence it is necessary to see evidence on record. 10. Deceased Dattu was more than 15 years old. The school leaving certificate produced on record shows his date of birth is 25.06.1990. In the evidence of appellant no.1, it has come on record that the deceased used to help him in agricultural work. The Tribunal has denied this fact on the ground that in cross-examination, the appellant has admitted that the deceased was busy throughout the day in his studies. I have seen evidence given by appellant. In his cross examination, this witness denied the suggestion that Dattu never helped him in agricultural work. The Tribunal by figment of imagination come to know that Dattu was busy in study throughout day. The occupation of appellant no.1 is agriculture and the deceased was his son. It is common in village that the son helps his father in the agricultural work. It indicates the Tribunal has not applied his mind while considering the evidence on record. While awarding lumsum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, the Tribunal has held that Dattu was minor child, his income cannot be estimated, therefore, the financial loss suffered by the claimants cannot be calculated. In my view, a mechanical approach is taken by the Tribunal while awarding lumsum compensation. It is admitted fact that the deceased was more than 15 years. In evidence it has come on record that he was helping his father in agricultural work, hence notional income should have been considered by the Tribunal. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal Vs. It is admitted fact that the deceased was more than 15 years. In evidence it has come on record that he was helping his father in agricultural work, hence notional income should have been considered by the Tribunal. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal Vs. Lata and others (supra) has held that while awarding the compensation for death of child aged between 10 to 15 years, the compensation shall be awarded taking into consideration the contribution of the children to the family of the appellants by working hard. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to take notional income of Rs.30,000/- p.a. In the present case, the deceased was helping his father in agricultural work, hence I am considering his notional income of Rs.30,000/- per year. His age was more than 15 years, hence the multiplier of 18 is applicable. Thus the multiplication of Rs.30,000/- X 18 comes to Rs.5,40,000/-. In addition to it, Rs.50,000/- is awarded under conventional head (towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites) as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra). 12. The future prospects of 40% is awarded of Rs.12,000/-. The appellants are also entitle for consortium amount of Rs.40,000/- each as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1546. 13. Considering the above calculations, the appellants are entitle for following amount of compensation:- Sr. No. Head Compensation awarded 1. Notional income Rs.30,000/- per year 2. Addition of 40% as future prospects (Rs.30,000/- + Rs.7,500/-) Rs.37,500/- 3. After 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses (Rs.37,500/- - Rs.18,750/-) Rs.18,750/- 4. As the age of deceased was 18 years, hence multiplier is to be applied is 18 (Rs.18,750/- X 18) Rs.3,37,500/- 5. Conventional Head Rs.50,000/- 6. Consortium amount (Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.40,000/- X 2) Rs.80,000/- 7. Total Rs.4,67,500/- 8. Tribunal has awarded : Rs.1,50,000/- This Court calculated compensation amount : Rs.4,67,500/- Thus the appellants are entitle to receive enhanced amount i.e. Rs.4,67,500/- - Rs.1,50,000/- : Rs.3,17,500/- 14. Though the appellants are claiming 9% rate of interest, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Benson George V/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 238 has awarded 6% rate of interest, hence I am considering the rate of interest at 6%. Though the appellants are claiming 9% rate of interest, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Benson George V/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 238 has awarded 6% rate of interest, hence I am considering the rate of interest at 6%. 15. In view of the above, I pass the following order :- ORDER : (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.4,67,500/-. Appellants are entitled to enhanced amount of Rs.3,17,500/- @ 6% from the date of filing claim petition till realization of amount. (iii) The appellants are entitle to withdraw the amount deposited by respondent no.3. (iv) Appeal is disposed of in above terms.