Order : GANESH RAM MEENA, J. 1. The claimants/appellants, being the legal heirs and parents of deceased minor girl Miss Asha Kumari, aged 10 years, have presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in their claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, for the tragic and untimely death of their daughter in a road accident. The incident took place on 28th October 2005 at approximately 1:30 PM on National Highway No. 11, near Santosh Sagar Restaurant at Biharipura Mode. At the time of the accident, the deceased was attempting to cross the road with care when she was suddenly struck by an army jeep bearing registration number 02G 8413/8H, which was being driven at a high speed and in a reckless manner by Respondent No. 1, Baljinder Singh. The vehicle was traveling from Dausa toward Jaipur, and the collision led to the child’s instant death, as the jeep ran over her. Witnesses present at the scene, including residents such as Harshaya Meena and Ramu, attempted to stop the vehicle, but due to its speed and lack of control, the accident could not be averted. 2. Following the incident, the father of the deceased, Advocate Revdamal, filed a complaint at Bansi Police Station, upon which FIR No. 370/05 was registered. The investigation confirmed the facts as narrated by the complainant and eyewitnesses, and a charge sheet was filed against non- claimant/Respondent No. 1 under Sections 279 and 304A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE for rash and negligent driving. The post-mortem report confirmed the injuries sustained by the deceased as consistent with the account of the accident, and her age was established as 10 years based on official records, post-mortem report, and corroborative witness testimony. 3. Non-claimants/Respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 filed reply denying the claims of negligence and submitted that the girl ran across the road carelessly and that the accident was unavoidable, asserting that the vehicle was being driven properly and at a reasonable speed. They also raised a procedural objection, alleging that the claim petition was not in compliance with Section 16 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT and the Rajasthan State Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules. They also raised a procedural objection, alleging that the claim petition was not in compliance with Section 16 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT and the Rajasthan State Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules. However, the non-claimant/Respondent No. 1 failed to file any written reply and instead defended himself during the tribunal proceedings, claiming that the girl suddenly came in front of the jeep, and the accident occurred despite his best efforts to avoid it. 4. In light of the above, the Tribunal rejected the defence raised by the opponents and held non-claimant/Respondent No.1 liable for the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. Relying on judicial precedents, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender & Ors. reported in 2006(13) SCC 60 and other similar cases, the Tribunal allowed compensation as Rs. 1,80,000/- in lump sum for the loss of life of the 10-year-old child. Additionally, the Tribunal directed the opponents to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount from 3rd July 2006 until realization. It was further ordered that the amount be distributed between the parents of the deceased in a structured manner, with Rs. 10,000 each to be disbursed for the first four years, and the remaining amount to be paid jointly thereafter. 5. The counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal, after examining the statements of the witnesses, the police report, and the driver’s defense, found the evidence produced by the appellants to be consistent and credible. The driver’s explanation that the child came running in front of the vehicle was not supported by any corroborative evidence. He further submits that, given the location of the accident—near a restaurant and populated area—it was expected of the driver to exercise heightened caution, especially considering the presence of pedestrians, including children. The counsel further submits that the Tribunal noted that the accident could have been avoided had the vehicle been driven at a controlled speed with due vigilance. He also submits that a child’s unexpected behavior does not absolve a driver of responsibility, particularly when driving in an area where such risks are foreseeable. The counsel further submits that the Tribunal noted that the accident could have been avoided had the vehicle been driven at a controlled speed with due vigilance. He also submits that a child’s unexpected behavior does not absolve a driver of responsibility, particularly when driving in an area where such risks are foreseeable. The counsel further submits that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving by Respondent No. 1 and that the procedural objections raised by the other respondents are technical in nature and cannot defeat the substantive right of the appellants to receive compensation for the loss of their minor child. The findings of the police investigation, the FIR, and the post-mortem report all support the appellants’ case. Therefore, it is just and proper that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be enhanced. 6. Counsel appearing for the appellants further submits that the Claims Tribunal has allowed lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- without allowing compensation under the various heads such as loss of income after taking into consideration the notional income as per the Second Schedule of Section 163A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT . He submits that as per Second Schedule of section 163A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , the notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to the accident was given as Rs.15,000/- per annum. The amount of Rs.15,000/- per annum was provided vide Notification dated 14.11.1994 and looking to the price index, this notional income is also required to be considered as an enhanced amount. 7. Counsel for the appellants further submits that the appellants have not been allowed any compensation towards the conventional head, consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. 8. In support of the submissions counsel appearing for the appellants has placed reliance upon the following judgments: A. Manoj Kumar & Anr. Vs. Deendayal & Ors., (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4358/2017), decided on 5.2.2022 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court; B. Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Others, reported in 2013 ACJ 2594 ; and C. Mohan Lal & Ors. V. Satish Kumar & Ors., (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1930/2001, decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 2.1.2018. 9. Ms. Appeal No.4358/2017), decided on 5.2.2022 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court; B. Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Others, reported in 2013 ACJ 2594 ; and C. Mohan Lal & Ors. V. Satish Kumar & Ors., (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1930/2001, decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 2.1.2018. 9. Ms. Manjeet Kaur, counsel for the non-claimants/ respondents submits that the compensation amount as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and fair. She further submits that the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation amount relying upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satendra & Ors. (supra) 10. Considered the submissions made at Bar and also perused the record of the case. 11. It is not in dispute that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 10 years. 12. Section 163A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT provides that the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. 13. In the Second Schedule for compensation of the compensation amount, the Notional Income to those who had no income prior to the accident is to be taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum and that amount of Rs.15,000/- per annum was provided vide Notification dated 14.11.1994. 14. This Court while considering the issue is also cognizant of the fact that the value of rupee has come down and the price index has gone much higher. The present case relates to the accident of the year 2005 and therefore, the Notional Income of Rs.15,000/- per annum as provided under the Second Schedule of section 163A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT has to be taken to its logical conclusion looking to the price index. 15. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar & Anr. v. Deendayal & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4358/2017), decided on 05.02.2022 has also observed as under:- “9. This Court takes judicial notice that the value of rupee is still dwindling. Moreover, it has come in evidence that the victim was going to market to purchase something. v. Deendayal & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4358/2017), decided on 05.02.2022 has also observed as under:- “9. This Court takes judicial notice that the value of rupee is still dwindling. Moreover, it has come in evidence that the victim was going to market to purchase something. Evidently, he was actively participating and cooperating the parents in their day to day affairs according to his capacity. Therefore, in my view a multiplicand of Rs.45,000/- per annum would not be exorbitant in the background and prevailing socio-economic scenerio. Considering the legal principles laid down in Sarla Verma's case which was approved in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others , reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, an appropriate multiplier would be of 15. Thus, the loss of dependency is of Rs.6,75,000/-. In Kishan Gopal's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded Rs.50,000/- under conventional head. Thereafter, in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram and Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , it was held that parents are also entitled for compensation under head loss of filial consortium. Thus, under conventional head Rs.40,000/- to each of the appellant, who are parents of the deceased is payable for loss of consortium. Besides the aforesaid, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses are also payable. Thus, Rs.1,30,000/- is payable under conventional head. Thus, total amount comes to Rs. 8,05,000/-, this amount be paid after deducting already paid amount by the insurer along with 8% interest from the date of application as decided by the Tribunal.” 16. In view of the aforesaid provisions and the observations of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the cased of Manoj Kumar & Anr. (supra) , this Court deems just and proper to assess the Notional Income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum. 17. Considering the legal principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 and so also in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi , reported in 2017(16) SCC 680 and as per Second Schedule of Section 16 3A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , the appropriate multiplier applicable in this case is 15 and thus, the loss of income would come to Rs.4,50,000/-. 18. 18. Having regard to an agreement with the observations of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Manoj Kumar & Anr. (supra) and taking into consideration the date of accident, this Court would like to allow Rs.40,000/- each to the appellants who are the parents of the deceased under the conventional head, loss of filial consortium as has also been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram and others , reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . 19. Apart from the aforesaid compensation amount, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses are also payable. Thus, in total Rs.1 lakh is payable under the conventional head. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.5,50,000/- and this amount be paid to the appellants after deducting the amount already paid by the non-claimants/respondents. The appellants would also be entitled for interest on this enhanced amount in the same terms as has been allowed by the Claims Tribunal with the interest of 9% per annum. 20. As a result, this misc. appeal is partly allowed, as above. 21. Pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. 22. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.