JUDGMENT Vipin Chandra Dixit, J. As per office report dated 12.08.2021, notice issued to respondents by R.P.A.D. fixing 27.09.2021. Office has further reported on 05.04.2024 that neither undelivered cover nor any acknowledgement has return back after service. 2. In view of above, service of respondents is deemed to be sufficient. 3. Heard Sri. Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants, Sri. Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 and perused the record. No one is present for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 4. This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 19.04.2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, court No., Bulandshahr, in M.A.C.P. No. 379 of 2005 (Rajendra Kumar Agarwal and another v. Manjoor and others) by which compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- along with 6% interest has been awarded in favour of claimants-appellants on account of death of Km. Nancy Agarwal aged about 13 years. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that that compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is too meager. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors. reported in 2023 (1) SCC 204 by which, the compensation has been enhanced by Hon'ble Apex Court from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of a young boy aged about 12 years. It is further submitted that the case of the present claimants-appellants is squarely covered with the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meena Devi (supra), as in the present case, the age of the deceased was 13 years. 6. On the other hand, Sri. Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Insurance Company has not disputed the aforesaid legal position. He further submits that the insured vehicle was plied in violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy and the right of recovery has already been given to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner of vehicle. 7. Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 13 years on the date of accident and as such, compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is not appropriate. The claimants-appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 7. Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 13 years on the date of accident and as such, compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is not appropriate. The claimants-appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meena Devi (supra). 9. In view of above, the present first appeal from order is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-. The claimants-appellants are also entitled for interest @ 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of award i.e. 19.04.2008. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount along with interest within two months from today with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.