JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 09.11.2015 in M.V.O.P. No. 69 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor (“Tribunal” for short) whereunder, the Tribunal dealing with a claim of compensation made by the claimants for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with regard to the death of the B.Mohammad Siddiq @ Basha (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 02.12.2013 at 4.45 p.m. awarded a sum of Rs.4,65,000/- towards compensation. 2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the petitioners in M.V.O.P. No. 69 of 2014, according to the averments set out in the claim before the Tribunal, in brief, is that: The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents and the 3rd petitioner is the unmarried sister of the deceased B. Mohammad Siddiq Basha. The deceased was aged about 13 years and studying VII class in Z.P. High School, Doddipalli, Chittoor. On 02.12.2013 morning the deceased went to school at Doddipalli, Chittoor Mandal. After completion of school, he returned to the house in the RTC bus. He got down the bus at the Eguva Ponepalle bus stop on Penumur-Chittoor road along with other students. While he was crossing the road, one TATA ACE luggage auto bearing registration No. AP-03-TA- 6676 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came at high speed and hit the deceased. As a result, he fell on the road and received a head injury. He was shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor, in a private vehicle for treatment and from there he was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati. While undergoing treatment on 03.12.2013 he died. Petitioners spent Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenditure and transport charges. On the report lodged by one B. Nawab, who was an eye witness to the occurrence, police registered the FIR in Crime No. 105/2013, under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle and later altered the section of law on account of the death of the deceased. The police, after completion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet in C.C. No. 513 of 2013. The police, after completion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet in C.C. No. 513 of 2013. The petitioners suffered a lot on account of the death of the deceased. The accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to compensation. 4. Respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte. 5. Respondent No. 2 filed a counter contending in substance that the petitioners have to prove the manner of accident and negligence alleged against the driver in driving the offending vehicle and their entitlement to claim compensation. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ACE auto bearing Reg. No. AP-03-TA-6676? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW-1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 8. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence found that the accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded the compensation of Rs.4,65,000/-. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful respondent No. 2/Insurance Company filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 9. Now, in deciding the M.A.C.M.A. the point that arises for determination is whether the award, dated 09.11.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 69 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? Point: 10. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The driver had no valid driving license. Apart from that, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum instead of Rs.15,000/- per annum. The deceased was a non-earning member. He was aged about 13 years and the accident was occurred due to his negligence while crossing the road. Hence, the award needs interference. 11. The driver had no valid driving license. Apart from that, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum instead of Rs.15,000/- per annum. The deceased was a non-earning member. He was aged about 13 years and the accident was occurred due to his negligence while crossing the road. Hence, the award needs interference. 11. Sri B.S. Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, would contend that PW-2 and PW-3, who were the direct witnesses to the occurrence spoke of the manner of the accident and further the police after due investigation filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal rightly held that the accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal rightly considered the income of the deceased as that of Rs.30,000/- per annum applied the appropriate multiplier and awarded just compensation. In support of his contentions, he would rely upon the citations in Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and Others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 841, Kishan Gopal and Another vs. Lala and Others, (2014) 1 SCC 244 and Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and Another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Another, (2022) 1 SCC 317 . With the above submissions, he would contend that Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. As seen from the evidence of PW-1, the mother of the deceased, she deposed in accordance with the petition averments. Through her examination, Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. Ex.A1 was the certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2 was the certified copy of the charge sheet. Ex.A3 was the certified copy of the post-mortem certificate. Ex.A4 was the certified copy of the inquest report. Ex.A5 was the certified copy of the accident information report. Ex. A6 was the certified copy of the M.V.I. report. Ex.A7 was the original transfer certificate. The petitioners examined PW-2 and PW-3, who were the direct witnesses to the occurrence. They deposed that when the deceased and others while crossing the road, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. Nothing could be elicited during the course of cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-3 to disbelieve their testimony. The police registered the F.I.R. in respect of the accident in question and after investigation filed the charge sheet under Ex.A2. Nothing could be elicited during the course of cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-3 to disbelieve their testimony. The police registered the F.I.R. in respect of the accident in question and after investigation filed the charge sheet under Ex.A2. The cause of the death is on account of the fatal injuries received in the accident which is evident from Ex.A3-copy of post-mortem report. The accident was not occurred on account of any mechanical defects according to Ex.A6-M.V.I. report. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle. 13. Now, turning to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded compensation under the following heads: Damages towards transportation Rs. 10,000.00 Damages towards funeral expenses Rs. 25,000.00 Damages towards clothes and articles Rs. 5,000.00 Damages towards pain and suffering, love and affection Rs. 2,00,000.00 Damages towards loss of future earnings and dependency Rs. 2,25,000.00 Total Rs. 4,65,000.00 14. As seen from the damages towards transportation and damages towards clothes and articles are concerned, it needs no interference whatsoever. However, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, love and affection needs interference. Apart from this, the conventional heads of compensation under funeral expenses is well regulated by the National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 SCC Online SC 1270 case. Keeping in view that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs interference. 15. Now, it is a case where the deceased was aged about 13 years and studying VII class and he was a non-earning member. Though the notional income of the deceased that can be considered is mentioned in Schedule-II of the M.V. Act, 1988, the Tribunal fixed Rs.30,000/- per annum as notional income. 16. As seen from the judgment in Meena Devi’s case (supra), it is relating to just compensation. Turing to the judgment in Kishan Gopal’s case (supra), it was a case where the death of 10 years old child happened and she was a non-earning member and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in case of death of children in motor vehicle accidents between the age group of 10 to 15 years, compensation can be considered notionally. However, the notional income under Schedule-II of the M.V. Act, 1988, at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 1994 cannot be considered on account of the decrease in value of rupees. However, the notional income under Schedule-II of the M.V. Act, 1988, at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 1994 cannot be considered on account of the decrease in value of rupees. In that particular case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the notional income of the child who died at the age of 10 years as that of Rs.30,000/- per annum. In Kurvan Ansari’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to consider the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum as mentioned in Schedule-II of M.V. Act, 1988. 17. Having regard to the above, the exercise made by the Tribunal in considering the notional income as that of Rs.30,000/- per annum is found to be reasonable, as such, it needs no interference. In view of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 case, the proper multiplier is “15.” As the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal deducted 50% towards the personal expenses and arrived at multiplicand as Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.30,000/- minus Rs.15,000/- = Rs.15,000/- X 15). 18. It is to be noted that the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- towards the funeral expenses and loss of estate, in view of the Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Further the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 being the parents of deceased are entitled to filial consortium in view of the judgment in Janabai WD/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade and Others vs. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Insurance Company Ltd. MANU/SC/0985/2022 to the extent of Rs.40,000/-. Hence, the compensation which can be awarded to the petitioners on reasonable basis can be summarized as follows: Transportation charges Rs. 10,000.00 Clothes and articles charges Rs. 5,000.00 Funeral expenses and loss of estate (Pranay Sethi’s Case) Rs. 30,000.00 Filial consortium Rs. 40,000.00 Loss of future earnings and dependency Rs. 2,25,000.00 Total Rs. 3,10,000.00 19. In the light of the above, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,10,000/-as such, the award of the Tribunal needs interference so as to reduce the compensation. 20. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part with proportionate costs reducing the compensation from that of Rs.4,65,000/- to Rs.3,10,000/- and apportioning the same as that of Rs.1,35,000/- each to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner No. 3. The appellant shall deposit the rest of the compensation within a period of one month from this date. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same. 21. The appellant shall deposit the rest of the compensation within a period of one month from this date. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same. 21. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.