JUDGMENT : VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J. 1. This First Appeal is filed by the appellants-original claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act challenging the judgment and award dated 19.9.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) at Anand in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 475 of 2017. The said judgment and award according to the appellants herein is contrary to the settled principles of law as laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal and Others vs. Lala and Others, (2014) 1 SCC 244 and that the quantum of the award is on lower side and contrary to the evidence on record. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal read thus: 2.1 On 16.7.2017, at about 20.30 hours when the deceased daughter of appellants was travelling in auto rickshaw No. GJ-23-Z-1589 along with her grandmother, when they reached near the place of accident driver of the auto rickshaw suddenly applied the brake, hence the vehicle coming from behind dashed with auto rickshaw which resulted in the accident. In same accident grievous injuries were sustained by the daughter of appellants and she succumbed to the same injuries during the treatment in the hospital. 3. The legal representatives of the deceased daughter who was aged five months approached the learned Claim Tribunal by filing MACP No. 475 of 2017 at MACT Anand under the provision of 163A of MV Act, 1988 for the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,09,500/-. The Tribunal by judgment and award dated 19.9.2019 awarded Rs.1,69,800/- together with interest at the rate of 9% to the appellants. The said judgment and award dated 19.9.2016 reads thus: “ORDER: The claim petition is hereby partly allowed. The opponent No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally do pay the applicants Rs. 1,69,800-00 (Rupees One Lax Sixty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till realization. The aforesaid opponent is directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month from today in this Tribunal. On such deposit being made, first of all deficit Court Fees, if any, to be deducted. 1,69,800-00 (Rupees One Lax Sixty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till realization. The aforesaid opponent is directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month from today in this Tribunal. On such deposit being made, first of all deficit Court Fees, if any, to be deducted. When deposited, after deducting deficit court fees, remaining amount be equally distributed amongst the applicants and from the share of respective applicant, 30% amount be paid to the applicant by A/c payee cheque, and rest 70% be fixed deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of five years in the name of applicant with a condition that no loan or advances shall be floated on the said FDR without prior permission of the Tribunal. However, the applicant will be entitled to get periodical interest which accrues on the said FDR. Award be drawn accordingly. Pronounced in the open Tribunal on today on 19th day of September, 2019.” 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award dated 19.9.2019 the appellants have approached this Court by filing the present appeal. 5. Heard Mr. R.G. Dwivedi, the learned advocate appearing for Mr. Pradeep R. Mishra, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. Rathin Raval, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. 6. The notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is served, but they have chosen not to appear. However, as the appeal is only for quantum this matter is finally heard. 6. Mr. R.G. Dwivedi, the learned advocate appearing for Mr. Pradeep Mishra, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred by considering the income of the deceased only Rs.12,000/- p.m. and erred in awarding Rs.1,69,800/-. The concerned Court has erred in not applying the principles as laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal and Others v. Lala and Others, (2014) 1 SCC 244 . 7. Mr. Rathin Raval, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company was not in position to controvert the submissions canvassed by the learned advocate appearing for the appellants. 8. 7. Mr. Rathin Raval, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company was not in position to controvert the submissions canvassed by the learned advocate appearing for the appellants. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the order passed by the concerned Court, in view of this Court the judgment and award dated 19.9.2019 by the concerned Court requires to be modified. 8.1 It is apposite to refer to the ratio as laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal and Others vs. Lala and Others, (2014) 1 SCC 244 , Paragraph-18 reads thus: “18. Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered together in favour of the appellants for the following reasons: The Tribunal having answered the contentious issue No. 1, against the appellants in its judgment the same is concurred with by the High Court by assigning erroneous reasons and it has affirmed dismissal of the claim petition of the appellants holding that the accident did not take place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the first respondent and therefore the contentious issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative against the appellants and it has not awarded compensation in favour of the appellants. Since we have set aside the findings and reasons recorded by both the Tribunal and the High Court on the contentious issue Nos.1 and 2 by recording our reasons in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment and we have answered the point in favour of the appellants and also examined the claim of the appellants to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellants as they have lost their affectionate 10 years old son. For this purpose, it would be necessary for us to refer to Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, at clause No. 6 which refers to notional income for compensation to those persons who had no income prior to accident. The relevant portion of clause No. 6 states as under: “6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident: .............. (a) Non-earning persons - Rs. The relevant portion of clause No. 6 states as under: “6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident: .............. (a) Non-earning persons - Rs. 15,000/- p.a.” The aforesaid clause of the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, is considered by this Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, while examining the tortuous liability of the tort-feasor has examined the criteria for awarding compensation for death of children in accident between age group of 10 to 15 years and held in the above case that the compensation shall be awarded taking the contribution of the children to the family at Rs.12,000/- p.a. and multiplier 11 has been applied taking the age of the father and then under the conventional heads the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded. Thus, a total sum of Rs.1,57,000/- was awarded in that case. After noting the submission made on behalf of TISCO in the said case that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be double as in its view the determination SC181 made was grossly inadequate and the observation was further made that loss of children is irrecoupable and no amount of money could compensate the parents. Having regard to the environment from which the children referred to in that case were brought up, their parents being reasonably well-placed officials of TISCO, it was directed that the compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other words, it should be Rs.1.5 lakhs to which under the conventional heads a sum of Rs. 50,000/- should be added and thus total amount in each case would be Rs. 2 lakhs. Further, in the case referred to supra it has observed that in sofaras the children of age group between 10 to 15 years are concerned, they are all students of Class VI to Class X and are children of employees of TISCO and one of the children was employed in the Company in the said case having regard to the fact the contribution of the deceased child was taken Rs.12,000/- p.a. appears to be on the lower side and held that the contribution of such children should be Rs. 24,000/- p.a. 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. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs. 30,000/- and further taking the young age of the parents, namely the mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and 50,000/- under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC vs. Susamma Thomas, which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa's case and the said amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we award Rs.50,000/- under conventional heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons the said amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellants. The said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. by applying the law laid down in the case of Municipal Council of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy 5, for the reason that the Insurance Company has been contesting the claim of the appellants from 1992-2013 without settling their legitimate claim for nearly about 21 years, if the Insurance Company had awarded and paid just and reasonable compensation to the appellants the same could have been either invested or kept in the fixed deposit, then the amount could have earned five times more than what is awarded today in this appeal. Therefore, awarding 9% interest on the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants is legally justified.” 9. For the foregoing reasons and the ratio as laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal and Others (Supra) the appellants claimants would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency is as under: Compensation Amount award by Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court 1. Annual income (As per II Schedule) 12,000 x 12 = 2,40,000 24,000 x 12 = 4,80,000 2. 1/3 deduction 1,60,000 3,20,000 3. Other heads 9,800 9,500 Total Compensation 1,69,800 3,29,500 Hence the final amount would be; Rs.3,29,500/- total compensation (minus -) Rs.1,69,800/- already awarded comes to Rs.1,59,700/- 9.1 Considering the annual income at Rs.4,80,000/- in view of above the amount of compensation stands enhanced by Rs.1,59,700/-. The enhanced amount of compensation be paid at the rate of 6% from the date of claim petition. The respondent No. 3-Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount of enhanced compensation of Rs.1,59,700/- within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order and the learned Tribunal shall disburse the same after due verification within a period of four weeks to the claimants. 10. In view of above, judgment and award dated 19.9.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) at Anand in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 475 of 2017 is modified to the aforesaid extent. The present first appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 11. It is further directed that the Tribunal shall disburse 30% of the entire deposited enhanced amount of compensation as determined by this Court i.e. Rs.1,59,700/- plus 6% interest and rest of the amount be deposited in terms of the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in FDR in the Nationalized Bank for a period of five years in the name of appellants with a condition that no loan or advance be floated on the said FDR without prior permission of the learned Tribunal. Further the appellants would be entitled to periodical interest which would accrue on the said amount. 12. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.