JUDGMENT : NUPUR BHATI, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment and award dated 12.02.2013 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sumerpur, District Pali in MAC Claim Case No. 168/2010, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,25,000/-along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim, and the liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the non-claimants No. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The non-claimant No. 3 i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. was however directed to pay the compensation and recover the same from the non-claimants No. 1 and 2. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants/claimants filed claim petition under section 166, M.V. Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.80,36,000/-along with interest @ 18% on account of death of deceased Pooja (daughter of appellants/claimants No. 1 and 2) in the accident which took place on 04.01.2010. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia alleged that on 04.01.2010 the deceased (aged about 10-12 Years at the time of death), who was studying in class 5th at Adarsh Vidhya Mandir, Sumerpur, was returning to her home along with other students in the school bus numbered RJ-22-PA-0700. It was submitted by the appellants that respondent No. 4/driver was driving the bus in negligently and in high speed and eventually near SDM Bunglow, it met with an accident with a Tempo Numbered RJ-22-GA-1908, carrying Iron angles, whose driver, respondent No. 1 herein, was also driving the said Tempo negligently and in high speed. Resultantly, the Iron angles broke through the mirror window of the bus and hit the deceased and other students who were sitting inside the bus. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and ultimately died on 05.01.2010 during the course of treatment. 3. It was alleged by the appellants herein that the death of deceased occurred due to the negligent driving of both the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. respondent No. 1 and 4). It was further submitted by the appellants in the said claim petition that at the time of accident the said Tempo, owned by respondent No. 2, was insured with respondent No. 3 (United India Insurance Co. It was further submitted by the appellants in the said claim petition that at the time of accident the said Tempo, owned by respondent No. 2, was insured with respondent No. 3 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) and the said school bus, owned by respondent No. 5 herein, was insured with respondent No. 6 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.). It was further submitted by the appellants that the deceased was a very good student. 4. On the contrary, it was submitted by the respondents No. 1 and 2 in the said claim petition that the respondent No. 4 is responsible for the said accident and hence, both respondents No. 4 and 6 are liable. It was further alleged that the said incident of iron angles breaking through the window of the bus was act of god and hence there is no fault of respondent No. 1. It was further alleged by respondents No. 1 and 2 that the appellants/claimants were not dependent on deceased and compensation exceeding Rs.50,000/- cannot be awarded to them. 5. In the said claim petition the respondent No. 3 denied the facts of the claim petition and submitted that only respondent No. 4 is responsible for the said accident. It was further submitted by respondent No. 3 that at the time of accident, respondent No. 1 was not carrying a valid & effective Driving License. And also the tempo was being operated against the terms & conditions the Insurance Policy. 6. The respondent No. 6 herein submitted in the said claim petition that respondent No. 4 was not was not carrying a valid & effective Driving License. And also the school bus was being operated against the terms & conditions the Insurance Policy. 7. And also the tempo was being operated against the terms & conditions the Insurance Policy. 6. The respondent No. 6 herein submitted in the said claim petition that respondent No. 4 was not was not carrying a valid & effective Driving License. And also the school bus was being operated against the terms & conditions the Insurance Policy. 7. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues including relief, which are being reproduced below: ^^1- vk;k fnukad 01-01-2010 dks oDr djhc 12-30 cts e`rdk dqekjh iwtk viuh Ldwy cl uEcj esa cSBdj vkjts&22&ih,&0700 es cSBdj ?kj tk jgh Fkh rHkh tokbZcka/k jksM+] lqesjiqj esa ,lMh,e fuokl ds lkeus vÁkFkhZ la[;k 1 [kq’kky flag us vius okgu VsEiks uEcj vkjts&22&th,&1908 dks rstxfr o ykijokgh ls pykrk gqvk vk;k] cl dk pkyd vÁkFkhZ la[;k&4 enu flag Hkh cl dks rstxfr o ykijokgh ls pyk jgk Fkk] nksuksa dh okguks ds MªkbZojksa us ykijokgh ls czsd yxk;s ftlls VsEiks esa Hkjh gqbZ csrjrhc yksgs dh ,axy cl ds lkeus dk dkap rksM+dj cl ds vanj ?kql x;h] cl esa cSBh gqbZ e`rdk dqekjh iwtk ds ,axyks ls xaHkhj pksV vkbZ ftldh bykt ds nkSjku e`R;q gks x;h\ 2- vk;k ÁkFkhZx.k vÁkFkhZx.k ls Dyse jkf’k la;qDr ,oa i`Fkd i`Fkd :i ls ÁkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k vÁkFkhZx.k ds tokc ,oa fo’ks”k mtj ds vuqlkj ÁkFkhZx.k dk Dyse pykus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 4- vuqrks”k\** 8. The learned Tribunal after hearing the arguments of the parties and considering record of the case vide its judgment and award dated 12.02.2013 awarded Rs.2,25,000/-along with interest @ 9% per annum to the appellants herein from the date of filing of claim. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in law as well as fact while computing the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants against the death of the deceased as the compensation awaded is at the lower side and computation deserves to be modified in terms of Section 168 (1) of M.V. Act, 1988. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred while not taking into consideration the settled principle of law as pronounced by the Apex Court cited in Lata Wadhwa and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred while not taking into consideration the settled principle of law as pronounced by the Apex Court cited in Lata Wadhwa and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 2001 (4) AIR SCW 3086, wherein the computation of compensation in the death of minor children above age of ten years has been made through multiplier method while assessing the multiplicand at the tune of Rs.2000/- per month and applying the multiple of 15. It was further submitted by the appellants that said case in hand before the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the year 1989 and the settled principle of assessment of compensation through multiplier method as established through ACJ 1994 Page 01 in Sushma's case speaks about the present economy as on date of cause of action (year 2010 death of victim) is to be considered, accordingly the learned Tribunal ought to have arrive the multiplicand in terms of the uprise of the value of rupees in the forth coming years and should have applied the multiple to determine just compensation. 10. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that it was submitted by the respondent No. 1 and 2 herein that respondent No. 4 is responsible for the said accident and hence, both respondents No. 4 and 6 are liable. The said incident of iron angles breaking through the window of the bus was act of god and hence there is no fault of respondent No. 1. It was further alleged by respondents No. 1 and 2 that the appellants/claimants were not dependent on deceased and compensation exceeding Rs. 50,000/- cannot be awarded to them. 11. It is submitted by respondent No. 3 herein that only respondent No. 4 is responsible for the said accident. It was further submitted by respondent No. 3 that at the time of accident, respondent No. 1 was not carrying a valid & effective Driving License. And also the tempo was being operated against the terms & conditions the Insurance Policy. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. The question that falls for adjudication before this Court is whether the enhancement should be made to the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 14. And also the tempo was being operated against the terms & conditions the Insurance Policy. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. The question that falls for adjudication before this Court is whether the enhancement should be made to the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 14. Before adverting to adjudicate the instant appeal on merits, this Court finds it germane to consider the current position of law with regards to issue in hand. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , gave following relevant observations with respect to the determination of compensation in such cases, which is as follows: “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 , Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 , which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 16. In Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave following observation whiling dealing with a similar case: “6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident: *** (a) Non-earning persons - Rs. In Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave following observation whiling dealing with a similar case: “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 MV Act, is considered by this Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 while examining the tortious liability of the tortfeasor has examined the criteria for awarding compensation for death of children in accidents between the 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. 38. In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa case(Supra) 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. 39. 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 Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , 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 v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335, which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 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.” 17. In Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto, (2023) 1 SCC 204 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave following observations: “13. Thereafter in Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 , 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 the MV 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 15,000 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. 14. Recently in Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 : (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 365 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173, wherein a child aged about 7 years died in a road accident took place on 6-9-2004, this Court taking notional income as Rs 25,000, applying the multiplier of 15, calculated the loss of dependency as Rs 3,75,000 and adding Rs 55,000 in conventional heads, awarded Rs 4,70,000. 15. 15. 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 the MV 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 the MV Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs 30,000 in Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241 and Rs 25,000 in Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 : (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 365 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173 in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively. 16. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down in Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241 are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that the deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs 30,000 including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002, the loss of dependency comes to Rs 4,50,000 and if we add Rs 50,000 in conventional heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs 5,00,000. As per the judgment of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs 1,50,000 has been awarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs 2,00,000 up to the value of the claim petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs 5,00,000 and on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs 2,00,000, the enhanced amount comes to Rs 3,00,000.” 18. In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 , a 3-judge bench of the hon’ble Supreme court gave following observations: “31. Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs 5,00,000 and on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs 2,00,000, the enhanced amount comes to Rs 3,00,000.” 18. In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 , a 3-judge bench of the hon’ble Supreme court gave following observations: “31. Section 168 of the 1988 Act provides the guideline that the amount of compensation shall be awarded by the Claims Tribunal which appears to it to be just. The expression, “just” means that the amount so determined is fair, reasonable and equitable by accepted legal standards and not a forensic lottery. Obviously “just compensation” does not mean “perfect” or “absolute” compensation. The just compensation principle requires examination of the particular situation obtaining uniquely in an individual case. 37. If the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the Table read with para 42 of the Report in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002 is followed, the wide variations in the selection of multiplier in the claims of compensation in fatal accident cases can be avoided. A standard method for selection of multiplier is surely better than a criss-cross of varying methods. It is high time that we move to a standard method of selection of multiplier, income for future prospects and deduction for personal and living expenses. The courts in some of the overseas jurisdictions have made this advance. It is for these reasons, we think we must approve the Table in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002 for the selection of multiplier in claim applications made under Section 166 in the cases of death. We do accordingly. If for the selection of multiplier, Column (4) of the Table in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002 is followed, there is no likelihood of the claimants who have chosen to apply under Section 166 being awarded lesser amount on proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle than those who prefer to apply under Section 163A. As regards the cases where the age of the victim happens to be up to 15 years, we are of the considered opinion that in such cases irrespective of Section 163-A or Section 166 under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the Table in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002 should be followed. This is to ensure that the claimants in such cases are not awarded lesser amount when the application is made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act. In all other cases of death where the application has been made under Section 166, the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the Table in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002 should be followed. 43.2. In cases where the age of the deceased is up to 15 years [Ed.: It would seem from the Table in Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002 (also set out in Para 28 hereinabove at p. 86a-e.), the age slabs are (1) less than 15 years, and (2) 15 years and above.] , irrespective of Section 166 or Section 163-A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the Table in [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] should be followed.” 19. In view of the aforesaid judgments passed in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and the guidelines issued by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, in case of death of child 10-15 years of age, a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-can be awarded Kishan Gopal’s case (supra). 20. This court has considered the submissions of both appellants as well as the respondents and also gone through the relevant authorities in the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal. 21. 20. This court has considered the submissions of both appellants as well as the respondents and also gone through the relevant authorities in the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the enhancement is justifiable. As per appellants/claimants, the deceased was 12 years’ old brilliant student, who was studying in 5th standard. Therefore, in view of guidelines issued by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, the appellants are held entitle to receive compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-along with interest @ 6% per annum. The appellants/claimants shall be entitled to following compensation: S. No. Particulars Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded and enhanced by this Court 1. Compensation towards the loss of dependency Rs. 2,25,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/- G. Total Rs. 5,00,000/- Less Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 2,25,000/- Total Rs. 2,75,000/- 22. The appellants/claimants are thus held entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.3,75,000/-along with interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition. The non-claimant No. 3 i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. is accordingly directed to pay the said amount along with the interest from the date of filing the claim petition to the appellants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the claimants shall be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount. The non-claimant No. 3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. shall have the right to pay the compensation and recover the same from non-claimants No. 1 and 2. 23. In the result, the misc. appeal file by the appellants/claimants is partly allowed and the judgment and award dated 12.02.2013 passed by learned Tribunal is modified.