JUDGMENT : ARCHANA PURI, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation, so awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on account of death of their son Vikram, aged 9 years, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 17.08.2000. 2. On appraisal of the evidence brought on record, learned Tribunal had granted compensation, to the extent of Rs.70,000/- along with interest @9% per annum. 3. Being dissatisfied with the awarded amount, the appellants claimants have filed the present appeal for seeking enhancement of the compensation, vis-a-vis death of their son Vikram, in the accident in question. 4. So far as the fact of accident and manner of its taking place, as well as liability fastened upon the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, to be joint and several are concerned, it is pertinent to mention that no appeal has been filed by the persons, so made liable to challenge the Award and thus, findings so recorded by learned Tribunal have attained finality. 5. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that compensation granted, on account of death of their son Vikram, in the accident, is meagre, which calls for extensive enhancement. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance company has refuted the claim of the appellants-claimants, while asserting that no satisfactory evidence has been led to seek compensation, as now impressed upon and thus, he submits that the appeal sans merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that deceased Vikram was 9 years old, who was asserted to be student of 3rd Class, but however, PW-1 Parkash, his father, while deposing in the witness box has stated about his son to be student of 1st Class. Learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.65,000/- in lumpsum as compensation and further amount of Rs.5,000/- has been granted, on account of performance of last rites and transportation etc. In total, Rs.70,000/- has been granted as compensation. However, it should be noted that no reason, as such, has been assigned for assessing the lumpsum amount. 8. Learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.65,000/- in lumpsum as compensation and further amount of Rs.5,000/- has been granted, on account of performance of last rites and transportation etc. In total, Rs.70,000/- has been granted as compensation. However, it should be noted that no reason, as such, has been assigned for assessing the lumpsum amount. 8. It is pertinent to mention that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as 'Kishan Gopal and another v/s Lala and others, 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 276', while considering the death of a child, aged 10 years took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- and applied multiplier of 15' and compensation came to be Rs.4.5 lakh. Another Rs.50,000/- was given towards love, affection, funeral expenses and last rites. The accident in that case, related to the year 1992. 9. Even, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another v/s Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, Civil Appeal No.6902 of 2021 decided on 16.11.2021” considered the case of death of 7 years old child, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place in the year 2004 and made certain observations, which are as under:- “11. As the claim was made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, since the deceased child was not an earning member, the Tribunal has considered notional income as per Schedule–II for the purpose of fixing compensation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation by taking notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum by applying multiplier ‘15’, awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- towards loss of dependency with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of judgment. When the appeals are preferred by the Insurance Company as well as the appellants herein, by the impugned common judgment, the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, and in the appeal preferred by the claimants, while confirming the compensation awarded for loss of dependency at Rs.2,25,000/-, has awarded a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and accordingly granted a total compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest @6% per annum payable by respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and by permitting it to recover the same from Respondent No.1 - owner of the motorcycle. 12. 12. In the judgment in the case of Puttamma & Ors., this Court has observed that the Central Government was bestowed with the duties to amend Schedule-II in view of Section 163A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, but it failed to do so. In view of the same, specific directions were issued to the Central Government to make appropriate amendments to Schedule-II keeping in mind the present cost of living. In the said judgment, till such amendments are made, directions were issued for award of compensation by fixing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for the non-earning children up to the age of 5 (five) years old and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) for the non- earning persons of more than 5 (five) years old. 13. In the case of R.K. Malik & Anr. also, this Court has observed that the notional income fixed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as Rs.15,000/- per annum should be enhanced and increased as the same continued to exist without any amendment since 14.11.1994. In the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. where the deceased was a ten years old child, this Court has fixed his notional income at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 14. In this case, it is to be noted that the accident was on 06.09.2004. In spite of repeated directions, Schedule-II is not yet amended. Therefore, fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum for non- earning members is not just and reasonable. 15. In view of the judgments in the cases in Puttamma & Ors., R.K. Malik & Anr. and Kishan Gopal & Anr., we are of the view that it is a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of the rupee and cost of living. In view of the same, the judgment in the case of Rajendra Singh & Ors. relied on by the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company would not render any assistance to the case of the insurance company.” 10. In view of the aforesaid observations, the Court took the notional income of the deceased child as Rs.25,000/- per annum and applied multiplier of 15' as prescribed in Schedule-II, for the claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and worked upon the amount as Rs.3.75 lakh, towards the loss of dependency. In view of the aforesaid observations, the Court took the notional income of the deceased child as Rs.25,000/- per annum and applied multiplier of 15' as prescribed in Schedule-II, for the claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and worked upon the amount as Rs.3.75 lakh, towards the loss of dependency. Besides the same, Rs.40,000/- each was given to the claimants, who were two in number, towards filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- was given towards funeral expenses. The total compensation was worked upon as Rs.4,70,000/-. 11. On the subject, in case titled 'Meena Devi v/s Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and others, 2022(4) RCR (Civil) 553' the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the case of death of 12 years old child, in a motor vehicular accident and while granting compensation had observed that the principle laid down in case of Kishan Gopal's case (supra), are aptly applicable to the facts of the case (in hand), and thus, took the notional earnings as Rs.30,000/- including future prospects and applying the multiplier of 15', in view of the decision of the Court passed in ''Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77', the loss of dependency was worked upon to be Rs.4,50,000/- and addition of Rs.50,000/- was made under conventional heads and thus, the total compensation was worked upon as Rs.5,00,000/- 12. Considering the aforesaid, now reverting to the case in hand. Be it noted that the Insurance Company had not challenged the Award. The accident in the case, in hand, had taken place on 17.08.2000 and also considering the date of death in Kishan Gopal's case (supra), the value of rupee has come down drastically. 13. Taking into consideration, all the aforesaid factors, in modest estimate, the notional earnings of the deceased, in the case in hand, can safely be taken to be Rs.30,000/- per annum. Thus, considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier to be applied in the case, in hand, as per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra), is 15' and so calculating, the loss of dependency comes to be Rs.4,50,000/-. 14. Besides the aforesaid, amounts are to be paid on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses as held in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). 14. Besides the aforesaid, amounts are to be paid on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses as held in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). In 'Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 (18) SCC 130 ', the concept of consortium, has been dilated in detail, wherein, it has been held that filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation, in case of accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for the parents is to lose their children for lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. Therefore, on account of filial consortium also, compensation is to be granted. 15. In this regard, reference is made to decision rendered in Harpreet Kaur and others vs. Mohinder Yadav and others, 2023(1) RCR (Civil) 327, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while relying upon Magma’s case (supra), had concluded about the children and mother of the deceased, all to be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards filial and parental consortium. Also, reference is made to Janabai and others vs. M/s I.C.I.C.I. Lambord Insurance Company Ltd., 2022(4) RCR (Civil) 85, wherein also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held the claimants of that case, each to be entitled to compensation, on the count of ‘spousal consortium’ for wife and ‘parental consortium’ for two children. 16. In consonance with the observations made in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), after making addition of 10%, after three years from the passing of the judgment, the amount payable, on the count of ‘loss of consortium’ is to extent of Rs.44,000/- to each of the claimants and for the ‘loss of estate’ as well as ‘funeral expenses’, it is Rs.16,500/-, on each count. 17. Considering the same, the compensation payable to appellants-claimants, on account of death of Vikram, is re-appraised, as herein given:- Loss of dependency : Rs.4,50,000/- Loss of consortium : Rs.88,000/- Loss of estate : Rs.16,500/- Funeral expenses : Rs.16,500/- Total : Rs.5,71,000/- 18. As such, the enhanced compensation, after the deduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to be Rs.5,71,000- 70,000=Rs.5,01,000/-. 19. As such, the enhanced compensation, after the deduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to be Rs.5,71,000- 70,000=Rs.5,01,000/-. 19. The impugned Award dated 18.10.2001 stands modified, to the extent, as indicated aforesaid and the remaining terms of disbursal of the compensation, shall be as granted by learned Tribunal. 20. With the above observations, the present appeal stands allowed.