JUDGMENT Birendra Kumar, J. - REPORTaBLE 1. The claimants are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation decided by the Motor accident Claim Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur in Motor accident Claim Case No.85/2013. By the impugned award dated 30.04.2015, the learned Tribunal awarded lump sum amount of Rs.01,80,000/- along with 6% interest from the date of application relying on the judgment of this Court in Malti (Smt.) and Ors. v. M.K. Vasu and Ors. reported in 2008 (1) WLC 589 against claim of Rs. 27,10,000/-. 2. The case and claim of the claimant-appellants is that their son-Lokesh aged about eight years was playing in front of his house on 21.04.2013. a rash and negligent bus bearing registration No.RJ29-Pa-1325 dashed him causing his instant death. For the accident aforesaid, Case No.92/2013 was registered at Police Station Soorwal, Sawai Madhopur and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet. The offending bus was insured with respondent No.3-United India Insurance Company Limited. The aforesaid facts are proved and established by documentary evidence produced on record and testimony of eye witness of the accident and they are not challenged in this appeal. 3. Mr. Deepak Khandelwal, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal erred in granting lump sum amount and not making calculation of 'just compensation' by adopting multiplier method. Learned counsel contends that in the case of Kishan Gopal and anr. v. Lal and Ors. reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even in case of death of a child having no income, the notional income should be taken as multiplicand and it should be multiplied with proper multiplier. Learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal wrongly did not award anything for loss of love and affection, for future prospect as well as separate amount for funeral expenses etc. 4. To contra, Mr. O.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 contends that the lump sum amount has been awarded considering the judgment passed in the case of Malti (Supra) by this Court and the said judgment would be binding on this Bench also. 5. In Kishan Gopal's case (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court took into note that in the Second Schedule to Section 163 a of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, there is provision for 'notional income' for compensation to those who had no income prior to the accident. In the Schedule, the notional income was Rs.15,000/-per annum. 5. In Kishan Gopal's case (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court took into note that in the Second Schedule to Section 163 a of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, there is provision for 'notional income' for compensation to those who had no income prior to the accident. In the Schedule, the notional income was Rs.15,000/-per annum. In the case of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 , considering the dwindling value of money, the Hon'ble Supreme Court applied enhanced notional income of Rs.24,000/- per annum. While considering the adoption of just notional income, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 38 of Kishan Gopal's case observed as follows :- '38. In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa's case with all fours is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years' old, who was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation which is an undisputed fact. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs. 15,000/-. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard.' 6. Thus, one of the important consideration was that the value of rupee came down drastically in last few decades. In Kishan Gopal's case, the accident had taken place in 1992 and the case of Kishan Gopal was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26.08.2013 and multiplicand of Rs.30,000/- per annum was allowed. 7. In Kurvan ansari alias Kurvan ali & anr. v. Shyam Kishore Murmu & anr. reported in 2022 (1) RaR 17 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon Kishan Gopal's case and applied multiplier method for deciding 'just compensation' for death of a child aged about seven years. 8. about nine years have elapsed since judgment of Kishan Gopal and it is a fact that the value of money has gone down in this period, therefore in my view, proper multiplicand in the facts and circumstances of the case would be of Rs.45,000/- per annum. This amount would not be exorbitant in the background of prevailing socio-economic scenario. 9. about nine years have elapsed since judgment of Kishan Gopal and it is a fact that the value of money has gone down in this period, therefore in my view, proper multiplicand in the facts and circumstances of the case would be of Rs.45,000/- per annum. This amount would not be exorbitant in the background of prevailing socio-economic scenario. 9. Further considering the legal principles laid down in Sarla Verma's case which was approved in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , proper multiplier would be of 15. Thus, the loss of dependency as calculated is Rs.06,75,000/-. Besides the aforesaid, both the claimants (parents of the victim of accident) are separately entitled for Rs.40,000/- for loss of filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- under conventional head of funeral expenses. 10. Thus, the total payable compensation as calculated is Rs.7,85,000/-. This amount would be payable minus already paid amount along with interest of 6% as ordered by the Tribunal from the date of application within two months. In default of payment within the time aforesaid, 12% interest would be chargeable from the date of death till realization. Other findings and directions of the Tribunal are affirmed. The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.