JUDGMENT : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. Heard learned counsel Ms.Satya Manjula for the appellant- insurance company and Sri. Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-claim petitioners. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved by the impugned award, dated 29.06.2025 in M.V.O.P.No.281 of 2022 (old MVOP No.875 of 2019) passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Mulugu (for short, ‘Tribunal’) and thereby, seeking to set aside the impugned order. 3. Appellant herein is the respondent No.3/insurance company, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the claim petitioners 1 and 2, respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein are the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the crime vehicle, respectively before the Tribunal. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under: 4.1. On 26.06.2019 at about 07.45 a.m., while the deceased– Akshara, aged 5 years, was proceeding from her house to main road, Mallampally village of Mulugu District, the respondent No.1 who was the driver of Sri Vivekananda School Bus bearing registration No.AP-15-B-7787 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’), drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased-Akshara, as a result, she received injury to leg and was immediately shifted to Max Care Hospital, Hanamkonda and taht while undergoing treatment, she died on the same day at about 10.15 a.m. The Police, Mulugu Police Station registered a case in Crime No.192/2019 under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 and filed charge sheet against him. 5. The claim petitioners i.e., the parents of the deceased filed claim petition against the driver and owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the accident till the date of realization. 6. The claimants averred that the deceased was aged about 5 years as on the date of accident; that she was hale and healthy and was studying 1 st class and she has got bright future and due to untimely death of their daughter, they are put to great hardship and suffered mental agony and lost love and affection. 7. 6. The claimants averred that the deceased was aged about 5 years as on the date of accident; that she was hale and healthy and was studying 1 st class and she has got bright future and due to untimely death of their daughter, they are put to great hardship and suffered mental agony and lost love and affection. 7. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the crime vehicle, remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company filed counter denying the allegations of the claim petitioners with respect to the manner of occurrence of accident and the age of the deceased and further contended that the alleged accident had occurred due to gross negligence on the part of the deceased since she was unable to cross the road by following the traffic rules and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 8. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the accident occurred on 26.06.2019 at about 7.45 hours at main road, Mallampally village of Mulugu Mandal and district, due to alleged rash and negligent driving of the driver of Sri Vivekananda High School Bus bearing No.AP-15-B-7787 resulting in death of Chidara Akshara ? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed for? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 9. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claim petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the 3 rd respondent-insurance company, none were examined, however, certified copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. 10. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the material and evidence placed on record, has come to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and awarded a sum of Rs.8,47,100/- towards compensation with costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization, payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondent No.3-insurance company was directed to deposit the said compensation amount within two months from the date of award, however, observed that respondent No.3 is entitled to recover the same from the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 11. The respondent No.3-insurance company was directed to deposit the said compensation amount within two months from the date of award, however, observed that respondent No.3 is entitled to recover the same from the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 11. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned Standing Counsel for insurance company submitted that Tribunal has failed to consider that the deceased was a minor, aged 5 years, and non- earning member and thus, erroneously has taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum and further, added future prospects of 40% of the said income and awarded compensation which is exorbitant and finally, prayed to allow the appeal by modifying the award passed by the Tribunal. In support of his contention, learned Standing Counsel for appellant placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto alias Nemchand Mahto and others , (2023) 1 SCC 204 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claim petitioners submitted that on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the just compensation and in this Appeal, no grounds are made out to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal. In support of his contention, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court: i) N.Jayasree and others v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited , (2022) 14 SCC 712 ii) Divya v. National Insurance Co.Ltd and another, 2022 LawSuit (SC) 1264 iii) Judgment of Supreme Court in Atul Tiwari v. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Consideration, Civil Appeal No.151 of 2025 : Consideration : 13. It is not in dispute that the deceased-Akshara died in a fatal road accident that occurred on 26.06.2019 at the young age of 5 years while she was playing in front of her house, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. 14. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for appellant is that Tribunal erred in awarding compensation without appreciating the fact that the deceased is a non-earning member since she was aged only 5 years at the time of the accident. 14. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for appellant is that Tribunal erred in awarding compensation without appreciating the fact that the deceased is a non-earning member since she was aged only 5 years at the time of the accident. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in directing the respondent No.3-insurance company to pay the compensation amount first and then recover the same from the respondent Nos.1 and 2, as there is clear violation on the part of the respondent No.2 in entrusting the vehicle to the respondent No.1, who had no driving licence as on the date of the accident and as such, the same needs to be modified. 15. Perusal of the record, particularly Ex.A1-CC of FIR, Ex.A4- CC of charge sheet and Ex.8-Study, Conduct and Date of Birth Certificate of the deceased goes to show that the deceased was aged 5 years as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence and also various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for claimants before it, had awarded total compensation of Rs.8,47,100/-, which includes conventional heads i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 16. In Meena Devi’s case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant, the Hon’ble Apex Court, by referring to the various decisions, held as under: “ 13. Thereafter in Kishan Gopal [ Kishan Gopal v. Lala , (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] , a child aged about 10 years died in a road accident took place on 19-7-1992, this Court made departure from the II Schedule of the MV Act and accepted the notional income of Rs.30,000 in place of Rs.15,000 applying the analogy that the value of rupee has come down drastically since 1994 when the notional income of Rs 15,000 was fixed in II Schedule of the MV Act . However accepting the notional income as Rs.30,000 and as per the age of the parents i.e. 36 years, the loss of dependency was calculated applying the multiplier of 15 at Rs.4,50,000 and a sum of Rs 50,000 was awarded under conventional heads awarding a total sum of compensation of Rs.5,00,000. 14. However accepting the notional income as Rs.30,000 and as per the age of the parents i.e. 36 years, the loss of dependency was calculated applying the multiplier of 15 at Rs.4,50,000 and a sum of Rs 50,000 was awarded under conventional heads awarding a total sum of compensation of Rs.5,00,000. 14. Recently in Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu [Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 : (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 365 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , wherein a child aged about 7 years died in a road accident took place on 6-9-2004, this Court taking notional income as Rs. 25,000, applying the multiplier of 15, calculated the loss of dependency as Rs.3,75,000 and adding Rs 55,000 in conventional heads, awarded Rs.4,70,000. 15. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs 15,000 as specified in the IInd Schedule of the MV Act has been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd Schedule of the MV Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs 30,000 in Kishan Gopal [ Kishan Gopal v. Lala , (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] and Rs 25,000 in Kurvan Ansari [Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 : (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 365 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively. 16. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down in Kishan Gopal [ Kishan Gopal v. Lala , (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that the deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that the deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs 30,000 including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in SarlaVerma [SarlaVerma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002], the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,50,000 and if we add Rs 50,000 in conventional heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs 5,00,000. …….” 17. In considered opinion of this Court, the issue involved and facts and circumstances of above case are similar to that of present case and therefore, the above decision squarely applies to the present case. 18. With regard to decision relied upon by learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in N.Jayasree’s case (supra), the issue adjudicated and facts in the said case are different with that of present case and as such, the same has no application. Insofar as the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Divya’s case (supra) and Atul Tiwari’s case (supra), which are relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, are concerned, the issue involved in those cases relates to the disability and therefore, they are not applicable to the present case. 19. Thus, considering the age of the child in the present case i.e. 5 years, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishan Gopal v. Lala , [ (2014) 1 SCC 244 ] are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, in considered view of this Court, the notional income of the deceased, who is non-earning member, can be taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum which includes future prospects in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Meena Devi ’s case (supra). Accordingly, this Court holds that the Tribunal erred in adding 40% of the notional income of the deceased towards future prospects. 20. Taking into account the age of the deceased as 5 years at the time of the accident, as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] , the appropriate multiplier would be ‘15’. 20. Taking into account the age of the deceased as 5 years at the time of the accident, as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] , the appropriate multiplier would be ‘15’. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 15) and if a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under conventional heads, total compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/-. 21. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants are entitled to the following amounts: Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded 1 Income including future prospects Rs.30,000/- p.a. 2 Multiplier 15 3 Loss of dependency (Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 15)) 4 Conventional heads Rs. 50,000/- Total compensation awarded: Rs.5,00,000/- 22. Accordingly, this Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal is modified, reducing the compensation from Rs.8,47,100/- to Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The appellant-insurance company herein is directed to deposit the said compensation amount i.e., Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and however, the appellant- insurance company is entitled to recover the compensation amount from respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein. On such deposit, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount as per the apportionment determined by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.