ORDER : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. I.A. No. 2570 of 2021 On the prayer of learned counsel for the respondents, this interlocutory application stands dismissed as withdrawn. M. A. No. 416 of 2015 1. Insurance Company is in appeal against the award of compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for the permanent disability to the extent of 80% suffered by the claimant (O.P. No.1) in a motor vehicle accident involving a truck bearing Registration No. MQL-0354. 2. Learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- under the head of future loss of income on account of permanent disability, and further awarded Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation under non-pecuniary head since the claimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 80%. Apart from this, Rs. 25,000/- was awarded under non-pecuniary head as lumpsum amount. 3. In the instant appeal, the award of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- is mainly under challenge, which has been made under non-pecuniary head and also the penal interest of 12% per annum. 4. It is argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant- Insurance Company that the Tribunal had awarded compensation both under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads, therefore it was not justified in awarding further compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on lump sum basis on the basis of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2015 (1) JCR (SC) 154 (Kumari Kiran Thr. Her Father Harinarayan Vs. Sajjan Singh & Ors). It is contended that the facts of the case in appeal are different from this case. Kumari Kiran Thr. Her Father Harinarayan case (supra) was about minors who had suffered permanent disability and, therefore, a notional loss of income under non-pecuniary head was assessed to be Rs.3,00,000/- each. 5. It is argued by learned counsel on behalf of the claimant- respondent that the present appellant-Insurance Company had not appeared and filed their written statement before the Tribunal and the plea which is being taken for the first time before this Court. It is also submitted that the full and final payment has been made and the original claimant Smt. Batiya Orain has already died. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, main question for consideration is if the learned Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of Rs 5,00,000 in lump sum under non-pecuniary head, when the claimant was not a minor? 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, main question for consideration is if the learned Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of Rs 5,00,000 in lump sum under non-pecuniary head, when the claimant was not a minor? 7. In order to appreciation the issue it will be desirable to consider the ratio of the Apex Court as laid down in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh, (2015) 1 SCC 539 . In this case it has been held that as minor child is a non-earning person, therefore compensation cannot be computed on taking the notional income of Rs 15,000 as provided under Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Further, the Court followed the law as laid down in Mallikarjun v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 14 SCC 396 and award Rs 1,00,000 each towards shock, pain and suffering (non-pecuniary head) in place of loss of future income due to permanent disability. Difficulty to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, was taken into account and held that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc. should be, if the disability is above 10% and up to 30% to the whole body, Rs 3 lakhs; up to 60%, Rs 4 lakhs; up to 90%, Rs 5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs 6 lakhs. For permanent disability up to 10%, it should be Rs 1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick. 8. I find merit in the plea advanced on behalf of the appellant that ratio of Kumari Kiran ( supra) shall not be applicable in the present case, as the present case was with respect to an adult who had suffered disability. The Tribunal already could not have awarded lump sum amount relying on the ratio of this case when it had awarded compensation under the following heads: Pecuniary : Rs 1,70,000/- computed by taking Rs 2,000/- per month and 80% of medical disability as the notional income and age of 55 years at the time of accident. Non-Pecuniary: Rs 25,000 + Rs 10,000 + Rs 2000 9. Non-Pecuniary: Rs 25,000 + Rs 10,000 + Rs 2000 9. However, the claimant has not been awarded compensation under the head of loss in future prospect which will be Rs1,70,000/- x 10% = Rs.17,000/- and further claimant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 under the head of mental pain and agony. Thus, the substituted heirs and descendants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,70,000+Rs17,000+Rs 2,00,000 =Rs 3,87,000 with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim application. Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount within a month of this order, if not already paid. It is clarified that taking into account the fact that original claimant has already died during the pendency of appeal and it has been submitted by the counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company that the claim amount has already been paid, in that event, there shall not be any recovery from the substituted heirs as it will be highly inequitable to allow recovery proceeding considering the nature of case. This Misc. Appeal is accordingly, disposed of. The Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount, which was deposited before this Court at the time of filing of this appeal.