JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present appeal the appellants - claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Tapi at Vyara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.247 of 2012 (Old No.310 of 2005), whereby the Tribunal vide impugned judgment award dated 19.6.2013 awarded Rs.1,74,000/- at the rate of 8% interest and cost. 2. Brief facts germane for adjudication of the present appeal read thus :- That the daughter of the appellant namely Savitaben Sakubhai Padavi (herein after referred to as deceased) on 26.1.2005 was traveling in Truck No.MH-18-M-765 with minor Ganesh along with his household goods and goods relating to the labour work. It is stated that, they reached near Sagar Stone Quory at that time the respondent No.5 came by driving Truck No.RJ-19- G-9065 in rash and negligent manner and came from the wrong side and dashed the truck wherein the appellant was traveling. It is further stated that due to the said accident deceased Savitaben sustained serious injuries which resulted into the death of Savitaben. For the said reason, the appellants herein filed claim petition to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondent. The Tribunal passed the following order : Paragraph 24 to 27 which is duly produce page 11 :- "(24) The petitioner in the Claim No – 247/12 (301/05) states that the petitioners are the parents and lawful heirs and representatives of the deceased. The deceased was 9 years old at the time of the accident and the petitioners used to do labour work and therefore, the amount of compensation sought should be granted. (25) The respondent submits that the deceased was unmarried and minor and she was not earning. Therefore, the amount of the compensation stated by the petitioners cannot be granted. (26) In this case, the petitioners were the parents of the deceased. The deceased minor was 9 years old and when she is 9 years old, she cannot have any income. Further, the accident mentioned in the petition took place on 26/01/05. Considering the inflation, minimum wages of that time, the income can be considered as Rs.1800/- per month. Further, it is considered just, reasonable and appropriate to pass the order for compensation of 900 x 12 – i.e. Rs. Further, the accident mentioned in the petition took place on 26/01/05. Considering the inflation, minimum wages of that time, the income can be considered as Rs.1800/- per month. Further, it is considered just, reasonable and appropriate to pass the order for compensation of 900 x 12 – i.e. Rs. 10,800/- for the loss of income to the petitioner after deducting 1/2 amount of her personal expense as the deceased was unmarried and Rs.1,62,000/- as a multiple of 15 considering the age of the petitioner. (27) Further, it is considered just, reasonable and appropriate to pass the order for the total compensation of Rs. 1,74,000/- (One Lakh Seventy Four Thousand only) along with Rs.12,000/- which include Rs.10,000/- as the loss of asset due to the death of the deceased and Rs.2000/- as there are no bills of last rites." 3. Heard Mr. Hiren M. Modi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.6 - Insurance Company. 4. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants at the outset placed reliance on the ratio as laid down by the Hon'be Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi Versus Nunu Chand Mahto reported in AIR 2022 SC 5006 and submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is not in line with the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that in the facts of the present case, the deceased was a minor aged about 9 years and applying the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the amount of compensation payable to the appellants would be Rs.5,00,000/-. 5. Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company supported the order and judgment passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for in the order/judgment passed by the tribunal and the appeal may not be entertained. 6. Having considered the averments made in the appeal, submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and facts of the present case, this Court deems it fit to refer the ratio as laid down in the case of Meena Devi Versus Nunu Chand Mahto reported in AIR 2022 SC 5006 , has held as under :- "10. Having considered the averments made in the appeal, submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and facts of the present case, this Court deems it fit to refer the ratio as laid down in the case of Meena Devi Versus Nunu Chand Mahto reported in AIR 2022 SC 5006 , has held as under :- "10. Thus relying upon the observation, it is said that in place of issuing any guidelines for determination of compensation in case of death of a child, it may be left open to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of M.S. Grewal (supra), 14 school students died due to drowning in a river. This Court noticing that the students were belonging to 3 upper middle class background, however awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Thereafter in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), a child aged about 10 years died in a road accident took place on 19.7.1992, this Court made departure from the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act and accepted the notional income of Rs. 30,000/- in place of Rs. 15,000/- applying the analogy that the value of rupee has come down drastically since 1994 when the notional income of Rs. 15000/- was fixed in IInd Schedule of the MV Act. However accepting the notional income as Rs. 30,000/- and as per the age of the parents i.e. 36 years, the loss of dependency was calculated applying the multiplier of 15 at Rs. 4,50,000/- and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded under conventional heads awarding a total sum of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 12. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act has been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Rs. 25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari (supra) in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively. 14. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Rs. 25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari (supra) in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively. 14. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and others (2003) 2 SCC 274 , it was observed that under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount." 7. Considering the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi Versus Nunu Chand Mahto reported in AIR 2022 SC 5006 , placing reliance on paragraph No.12 considering the age of the deceased minor as nine years and income of the deceased minor as per IInd Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act. In view of this Court notional income of the deceased be treated as Rs.30,000/- and applying the ratio of 15 in accordance with the ratio as laid down in Sarla Varma (Supra) i.e. loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and adding Rs.50,000/- towards conventional heads, the total compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/-. The compensation stands enhanced by Rs.3,26,000/- accordingly. As referred above, there is no restriction that the compensation cannot exceed the amount claimed. The compensation is required to be "just compensation". Considering the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view inclined to enhance the amount of compensation by Rs.3,26,000/-. Though, the appellants have prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. 7.1 Considering the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the income of the deceased minor aged 9 years be computed as per the IInd Schedule under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act at clause 6 which refers to notional income for compensation to those persons who had no income prior to the accident. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,74,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. The appellants are entitled to additional amount of compensation of Rs.3,26,000/- (Rs. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,74,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. The appellants are entitled to additional amount of compensation of Rs.3,26,000/- (Rs. 5,00,000/- - Rs.1,74,000/-) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said enhanced amount from the date of application. The appeal requires to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award requires to be substituted by enhancing the amount of compensation. 8. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 19.6.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Tapi at Vyara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.247 of 2012 (Old No.310 of 2005) is hereby modified and in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.3,26,000/- as additional amount is awarded. This additional amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annuam which shall be from the date of filing claim petition till its realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit additional amount of compensation with 6% interest as early as possible within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. After deposit of the additional amount of compensation, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants preferably within a period of four weeks through RTGS, after proper verification. The bank account details shall be furnished by the learned advocate for the claimants to the Nazir Department of the Court concerned. The Court fees payable by the appellant claimant on enhanced compensation be deducted from the said amount and the remaining amount of compensation be disbursed in favour of the appellant claimant on due verification within a period of four weeks. 9. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.