ORDER : 1. Despite service upon respondents Nos.3 and 4-owner and driver respectively, nobody has put in appearance on their behalf. 2. The instant civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act of 1988’)challenging the legality and validity of the Judgment and Award dated 30.09.2014 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Udaipur, (‘learned Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.258/2014 whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.4,25,000/-, in favour of claimants along with interest @ 8 % per annum and liability to pay the said amount was fastened upon the respondents jointly and severally. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the on 30.07.2012 Dalchand was returning home by plying his cycle. At that time, near Mataji Ka Temple, a dumper bearing registration No.RJ-27-G-2773, coming from Umarda, hit the cycle of Dalchand resulting into his death. It was alleged by the claimants that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 herein. Challan was also filed against him. The dumper was registered with the respondent No.4 herein and was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. 4. A claim petition was filed by the father and the mother of the deceased before the learned Tribunal. Reply was filed by the appellant-Insurance Company while stating that the case was of contributory negligence of deceased Dalchand. An application under Section 170 of the Act of 1988 was also filed by the Insurance Company which came to be allowed by the learned Tribunal. Issues were framed and evidences were led by the claimants to prove their case. Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle chose not to file reply to the claim petition. 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition of the claimants and awarded Rs.4,25,000/- in favour of the claimants along with the interest @ 8% per annum and liability to pay the said amount was fastened upon the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this misc. appeal. 6. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this misc. appeal. 6. The learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the deceased was 11 years old and was studying in fifth standard and therefore, looking to this factual aspect, the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the quantum of compensation on a higher side. He further submits that at the time of the accident, the deceased Dalchand was plying the cycle in a rash and negligent manner in the wrong side and thus, the deceased was equally liable for the happening of the accident. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the claimants/respondents vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffers from any infirmity whatsoever so as to warrant any interference therein. 8. I have heard and considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties at Bar and have carefully gone through the material placed on record. 9. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company regarding contributory negligence on part of the deceased Dalchand is concerned, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the Insurance Company failed to produce any evidence regarding the contributory negligence on part of the deceased. Moreover, the learned Tribunal after perusing the site map (Exhibit-5) observed that the same does not indicate contributory negligence on part of the deceased. Thus, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the learned Tribunal has rightly observed that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. It also bears noting that the submission made by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company with regard to the deceased plying the cycle in a zig-zag manner, is not supported by any material available on record. Furthermore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side, is not tenable as the same is on lower side. 10. Though this misc. Furthermore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side, is not tenable as the same is on lower side. 10. Though this misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surekha v. Santosh : [ (2021) 16 SCC 467 ] , has allowed the appeal challenging the order of the High Court wherein, the High Court had declined to enhance the compensation awardable to the claimants merely upon claimants failing to file the cross appeal and consequently, the compensation awardable to the claimants was enhanced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while making the following pertinent observation:- “….. 3. By now, it is well settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants. ….” Thus, even in absence of a cross-objection or appeal filed by the claimants, the Court is duty-bound to award just compensation to the claimants looking to the beneficial nature of the Act of 1988. 11. This Court is also of the view that losing a child in an accident is an unfathomable tragedy for the parents. The anguish and grief that accompany such a loss are profound and enduring leaving the parents grappling with emotions that often defy description. In a case of death of a child, no amount of money can compensate the parents of the deceased child however, it is the duty of the Court to award just compensation looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Ors. v. Lala and Ors. : [(2014) 1 SCC 244] , where the age of the deceased child was 10 years, took the notional income of the deceased child as Rs.30,000/- per annum looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari and Ors. v. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Ors. v. Lala and Ors. : [(2014) 1 SCC 244] , where the age of the deceased child was 10 years, took the notional income of the deceased child as Rs.30,000/- per annum looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari and Ors. v. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Ors. : [(2022) 1 SCC 317] , where the age of the deceased child was 7 years, took notional income of the deceased child as Rs.25,000/- per annum and after applying Multiplier of 15, granted total amount of Rs.3,75,000/- under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ and also an amount of Rs.40,000/- to each of the parents under the head of filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, also in the case of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto and Ors : [ (2023) 1 SCC 204 ] where the age of the deceased child was 12 years, has taken the notional income as Rs.30,000/- per annum including future prospects and applied Multiplier of 15 to arrive at the compensation awardable under the head of ‘loss of dependency’and awarded Rs. 50,000/- under the conventional heads. 12. Thus, looking to the above factual matrix of the case and the age of the deceased child i.e. 11 years and also in light of the above cited judgments, this court deems it appropriate to take the notional income of the deceased child as Rs.30,000/- per annum and the multiplier of 15 in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divya vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. : [(2022) INSC 1108] Furthermore, looking into the facts of the instant case where there are two claimants (the father and the mother), this Court deems it just to award Rs.1,15,000/- towards conventional heads. 13. Thus, in view of discussion in the above paragraphs the compensation awardable to the claimants is as under: Particulars Awarded by the learned Tribunal Awarded/modified by the Court Loss of dependancy (i.e. Rs.30000/- x 15) [A] Rs.4,25,000/- [C] (Lump-sum) Rs.4,50,000/- Conventional Heads [B] Rs.1,15,000/- Total [A] + [B] Rs.5,65,000/- [D] Enhanced Amount [D]-[C] Rs.1,40,000/- 14. With the above observation and direction, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company is disposed of. The impugned award dated 30.09.2014 passed by the learned tribunal is modified accordingly. 15. With the above observation and direction, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company is disposed of. The impugned award dated 30.09.2014 passed by the learned tribunal is modified accordingly. 15. The claimants are held entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- along with interest @ 8% (same as awarded by the learned tribunal) from the filing of the claim petition in the same manner as directed by the learned tribunal.The amount of compensation, if any, disbursed to the claimants, shall be adjusted accordingly. No order as to costs.