JUDGMENT : NUPUR BHATI, J. 1. These misc. appeals have been preferred by the appellants/claimants and the New India Assurance Company Ltd. under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 (‘Act’) assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 06.02.2016 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Cases, Barmer (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 449/2015 (396/2015), whereby the learned Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition preferred by the claimants has awarded compensation in favour of claimants to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of claimants’ daughter, namely, Ms. Khushbu, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 04.02.2015. Both the non-claimants i.e. owner-cum-driver and insurance company have been held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation quantified by the learned Tribunal. 2. The appellants/claimants, by way of filing CMA No. 2546/2016 have sought enhancement of the compensation awarded and the appellant- Insurance Company (non-claimant No. 2) has challenged the impugned judgment award. 3. Facts of the case are that the appellants/claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation to tune of Rs.8,43,000/- on account of death of their daughter, namely, Ms. Khushbu in the accident, which took place on 10.12.2014. In the claim petition, it was stated that it was on 10.12.2014 at about 11:30 am, while the deceased was plying outside her house situated at Jatiyon Ka Nayabas; at that time, an unnumbered Ford Model Eco-Sport Car, being driven by non-claimant No. 1 rashly and negligently, dashed against deceased Khushbu. As a result of which, Khushbu sustained injuries, she was immediately taken to hospital, where she was declared dead. In the claim petition, it was stated that at the time of accident, Ms. Khushbu was 7 years of age and was studying. The claimants thus filed claim petition praying for awarding compensation along with interest under various heads. 4. The claim petition was contested by the non-claimant No. 1 (owner-cum-driver) by filing reply to the claim petition. The non-claimant denied negligence on his part and it was stated that while the deceased was crossing the road, she dashed with the Car and thus there was not fault on his part. In the alternative, it was stated that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with non-claimant No. 2, therefore, the liability to pay compensation shall be of insurance company. In the alternative, it was stated that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with non-claimant No. 2, therefore, the liability to pay compensation shall be of insurance company. 5. On behalf of non-claimant No. 2 i.e. insurance company, reply to claim petition was filed while denying the facts averred in the claim petition. It was stated that the deceased herself was negligent, inasmuch as she while crossing the road suddenly came in front of the car and thus there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased herself. An objection with respect to driver of the insured car not having valid and effective licence was also taken and the vehicle was being plied without there being valid permit and fitness. Thus, it was prayed that the claim petition qua the insurance company be rejected. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues including relief. In support of their claim petition, the claimants examined Pyari Devi (AW-1) and Babulal (AW-2). In documentary evidence, Ex.1 to Ex.12 were exhibited. In rebuttal, on behalf of non-claimant No. 2, Pankaj Meena (NAW-1) was examined. 7. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal vide the impugned judgment and award dated 06.02.2015 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of claimants. 8. The appeal preferred by the claimants was admitted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 22.02.2018 and the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company was admitted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.05.2016 and an interim order was also passed while directing the Insurance Company to deposit 70% along with interest of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, inclusive amount already deposited within a period of one month. The amount was directed to be disbursed to the claimants in terms of award and recovery of rest of the amount qua the appellant-Insurance Company was stayed. Later on, after compliance of the order dated 24.05.2016, the interim order dated 24.05.2016 was confirmed on 22.11.2016. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation, inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence, oral and documentary, led by the claimants. Later on, after compliance of the order dated 24.05.2016, the interim order dated 24.05.2016 was confirmed on 22.11.2016. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation, inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence, oral and documentary, led by the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal while quantifying the award under head of loss of filial has considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- however, applied the multiplier of 15 instead of applying the multiplier of 18 and, therefore, the same should have been Rs.5,40,000/-. So far as other conventional heads are concerned, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- only, which also deserves to be suitably enhanced and the compensation be awarded, as prayed in their claim petition. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company while opposing the submissions made by counsel for the claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability to satisfy the award upon the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company (non-claimant No. 2) submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error while deciding the Issue No. 1 against the Insurance Company, inasmuch as there was material contradiction in the testimony of Pyari Devi (AW-1) and Babulal (AW-2) and the papers submitted by the police after investigation. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the road, where the accident took place, was 90 feet wide road and the deceased while playing outside her house, came on the road without looking at the sides of the road and dashed against the offending vehicle. Thus, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased herself, however, this aspect of the matter has not been considered. 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that the owner of the vehicle has not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy, inasmuch as the vehicle was not registered in accordance with lAW- He further submitted that the vehicle was insured in the name of its owner (Swaroop Singh) on the basis of temporary registration number, which numbers were valid for a period of one month, during which the vehicle was required to be registered as per the provisions of the M.V. Act. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the temporary registration was valid up to 11.05.2014 and the accident took place on 10.12.2014, therefore, on the date of accident the vehicle was not registered and thus there was violation of the conditions of the policy. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon judgment in the case of Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. MACD 2014 (SC) 382. 12. While assailing the quantum of compensation and awarding interest @ 9% by the learned Tribunal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is on higher side, which also deserves to be reduced. 13. Nobody appeared on behalf non-claimant (owner-cum-driver) despite service of the notice in the appeal preferred by appellant- Insurance Company and in the appeal preferred by the claimants, service upon the non-claimant No. 1 was dispensed with. 14. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record. 15. This Court finds that while deciding the issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal has considered the testimonies of Pyari Devi (AW-1) (claimant) and Babulal (AW-2) (eyewitness). Pyari Devi (AW-1), in her statements stated that while her daughter was playing outside her house, it was the non-claimant (driver of the offending vehicle) dashed her daughter while plying the car rashly and negligently and a charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. AW-2 Babulal, in his examination deposed that on 10.12.2014 at about 11:30 am, while he was standing outside the house of Bhagirath, then a silver colour vehicle came from Renbasera side being plied by its driver rashly and negligently, dashed Ms. Khusbhu, who was standing outside her house. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has specifically recorded a finding that the testimony of these witnesses remained uncontroverted by non-claimants and the learned Tribunal also observed that the statements made by the claimants’ witnesses also fortified from the charge sheet filed against the driving of the offending vehicle. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly attributed the complete negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle and has not committed any error while deciding the issue No. 1. 16. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly attributed the complete negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle and has not committed any error while deciding the issue No. 1. 16. So far as issue No. 3 is concerned, the onus to prove the same was upon the non-claimant No. 2 Insurance Company. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue No. 3 has considered the statement of Pankaj Meena (NAW-1), who in his statements has stated that since the vehicle in question was a new vehicle and the insurance was done on the basis of temporary number, which was valid of a period for period of one month and the accident took place on 10.12.2014, therefore, in absence of valid registration, there was violation of the conditions of the policy. This Court finds that in the cross-examination, the said witness i.e. Pankaj Meena (NAW-1) has admitted that no proceedings were initiated by the Insurance Copany against the owner of the offending vehicle for not having a valid registration. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has considered the judgment in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), wherein the vehicle itself got damaged and insurance company refused to pay compensation in absence of valid registration. So far as the present case is concerned, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has observed that on account of negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle the accident took place, wherein claimants’ daughter Ms. Khushbu died and, therefore, the insurance company could not have been absolved from its liability, as the claim was with respect to third party, and for any loss caused to any third party, the liability has rightly been fastened upon the insurance company. It is clear from the perusal of the insurance policy (Ex.A-1) that no such condition has been mentioned in it that the insurance company would not be liable in case the registration of the vehicle is not valid. The only part of the ‘Certificate of Insurance’ that the appellant/insurance company has relied upon to substaintiate its contention with regards to the breach of policy conditions is the declaration wherein the insurer of the policy states that the ‘Certificate of Policy’ and the insurance policy are issued in accordance with the provisions Contained in Chapter-X and XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. And the aforementioned declaration is being reproduced hereunder: “I/We hereby certify that the policy to which this Certificate relates as well as this Certificates of Insurance are issued in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X and XI of M.V. Act, 1988 NIA S.T. REGN No. AAACN-4165-CST-178.” Thus, it is clear from the above-cited declaration that it nowhere limits the liability of the insurance company in case the insured vehicle does not have a valid registration. Further, Chapter X and XI of the M.V. Act does not contain any provision regarding the requirement of the registration of vehicle be it permanent or temporary, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly decided Issue No. 3 against the insurance company. 17. This Court finds that while deciding the Issue No. 2, which is with respect to quantum of compensation, the learned tribunal has considered the ratio in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lal & Ors. 2013 ACJ 2594 and quantified the compensation while considering the notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- who was seven years of age at the time of accident and has applied the multiplier of 15. This Court is of the considered view that looking to the age of the deceased child i.e. 7 years the notional income of Rs.25,000/- would be just, thus, the same is reassessed as Rs.25,000/- p.a. Further, this court finds no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants that the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Divya vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 7605 of 2022, has held that multiplier of 15 is applicable to age group of upto 15 years. So far as the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the conventional head is concerned, this court deems it appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.1,15,000 (Rounded off from Rs.1,14,950/-). Thus, the total amount of compensation as modified/awarded by this court is as under: 25,000 x 15 + 1,15,000/- = Rs. 4,90,000/- 18. Accordingly, the impugned award passed by the learned tribunal is partly modified. The claimants are thus, held entitled to get modified compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- along with interest @ 9% (same as awarded by the learned tribunal) and the same would be payable to the claimants in the terms of the impugned award. 19. 4,90,000/- 18. Accordingly, the impugned award passed by the learned tribunal is partly modified. The claimants are thus, held entitled to get modified compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- along with interest @ 9% (same as awarded by the learned tribunal) and the same would be payable to the claimants in the terms of the impugned award. 19. Accordingly, and in view of above discussion, the appeal (SBCMA No. 1218/2016) preferred by the Non-Claimants/Insurance Company, is partly allowed and the appeal (SBCMA No. 2546/2016) preferred by the Claimants/Appellants, is also partly allowed. No costs. The amount of compensation withheld under the interim order of this Court, shall be paid by the insurance company within a period of four weeks from the date of judgment.