JUDGMENT : (Easwaran S., J.) The claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam in O.P.(MV)No.753 of 2017 are the appellants. 2. One Sreesabari a minor died in a motor accident on 20.07.2017 at 4.10 p.m. Sreesabari and his mother were travelling on a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-48-H-2219 ridden by the 2nd petitioner (father) from the bus stand at Ottapalam to Railway Station. When it reached in front of K.V. Textiles at Ottapalam, Autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL-51-B-3683 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and as a result of the impact, the victim child sustained fatal injuries and his mother sustained grievous injuries. Though the injured were taken to the hospital, the minor child died on the next day i.e on 21.07.2017. The liability was indemnified by the 2nd respondent. 3. On the side of the claimants, Exts.A1 to A16 were marked. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that in respect of the death of the minor, an amount of Rs.2,44,500/-in addition to the ambulance charges of Rs.5,000/-and treatment expenses of Rs.11,150/-is to be allowed and accordingly awarded the compensation. 4. Aggrieved by the award of the compensation at a lower level, the claimants are before this Court with the present appeal. 5. I have heard Sri.Nimod A.R, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Lal K. Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants primarily contended that the award of the compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is too meagre. The Tribunal did not award compensation under the head funeral expenses and loss of estate and going by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (4) KLT 662 ], they are entitled for the compensation under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate. It is further contended that going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ], the Tribunal erred in not granting compensation towards love and affection and ignoring the principles of parental and filial consortium. 7. It is further contended that going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ], the Tribunal erred in not granting compensation towards love and affection and ignoring the principles of parental and filial consortium. 7. On the other hand, Sri.Lal K. Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that, in case of death of a minor child, it is not possible for the Tribunal to award compensation by calculating the notional income and applying the multiplier. The only method under which these compensations could be awarded is by calculating the compensation on a just and reasonable basis. In fact, Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 only contemplates awarding compensation on a just and fair manner. He relied on the judgment of a learned Single Bench of this Court in Vinod v. Suresh Kumar [2023 KHC 191] in support of the above proposition. 8. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar. 9. At the outset itself, it is to be noted that the Tribunal has arrived at the compensation and fixed it as Rs.2,44,500/-without any basis. A perusal of the award shows that there is no discussion on the part of the Tribunal as to how the aforesaid amount was arrived at. 10. The issue of granting compensation in respect of a deceased minor child had been a serious point of dispute. Various High Courts have taken different views, but ultimately, the endeavour was always to arrive at a compensation, which is only just and fair. 11. In Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and Others [2022 KHC 7080], the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue on awarding the compensation for a deceased minor child. A reading of the aforesaid judgment, especially paragraph No.13 shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, took the notional earning of the child at Rs.30,000/-including future prospects and applied the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010 (2)KLT 802 ] and calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.4,50,000/-and then added Rs.50,000/-in the conventional head and then a total sum of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was granted. 12. 12. In Bijumon v. New India Assurance Limited [ 2023 KHC 193 ], a learned Single Judge of this Court followed the decision in Meena Devi (supra) and arrived at the compensation under the head loss of dependency at Rs.4,50,000/-. 13. In New India Assurance Company Limited v. Urmila Halder (S.L.P(C)No.6260 of 2019), the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta, by which the compensation was increased from Rs.1,48,500/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. 14. Later, in Kusmi Devi v. Md. Kasim and Another [CDJ 2023 SC 858], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasioned to consider the question as to whether the principle of global compensation could be applied in a case where death of a minor has occurred. While considering the amount awarded as compensation by the High Court in an appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the principles followed by the High Court under the global compensation method, increased the compensation by another Rs.1,00,000/- lakh. 15. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants -Sri.Nimod A.R with regard to non granting of compensation under the head pain and sufferings and loss of estate, this Court finds that these principles are already settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, it is clear that the Tribunal has erred egregiously in not awarding the compensation under those heads. 16. On a cumulative assessment of the points discussed above, the question before this Court would be as to whether this Court should adopt the global compensation method as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and fixed the compensation accordingly instead of fixing it under different heads as claimed by the appellants, irrespective of the manner under which the appellants are entitled for compensation. 17. On a consideration of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena Devi (supra) and also the principles laid down in Kusmi Devi (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the appellants are certainly entitled for compensation fixed as per the global compensation method followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is declared that the appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation by applying the principles of global compensation method and thus they are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. Thus the appellants are entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.3,39,350/- (6,00,000-2,60,650). The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 28.11.2017 till date of realisation. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation together with interest and proportionate costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claimant shall furnish the details of the bank account to the insurance company for transfer of the amount. The appeal is ordered accordingly.