1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1081/05 Ibrahim @ Bali Mohammad & Anr. Vs. Ashok Singh & Ors. Date of order : 17/4/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rajneesh Gupta for the appellants. Shri Virendra Agarwal for the respondent no.5. ****** This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindaun City, District Karauli whereby the said Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the claimant-appellants for accidental death of their son aged 7 years. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Tribunal has failed to consider that even in the case of a death of a child, who is a non-earning person, the notional income for compensation has to be accepted at Rs.15,000/- per annum as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The case of this nature is not required to be examined from the point of view of dependency. The appellants are entitled to compensation after applying the 2 multiplier of 15. Learned counsel in the course of arguments made reference to the various judgment of Supreme Court, which have been noticed and followed by a recent judgment of this Court in Smt. Malti & 52 Ors. vs. M.K. Vasu & 52 Ors.-2008(1) WLC (Raj.) 589. The coordinate bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment decided a bunch of 52 appeals upon hearing all concerned. In all these appeals, the victims of the accident were children within three age groups namely; (i) upto 5 years, (ii) 5 to 10 years and (iii) 10 to 15 years. The Court while relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satender & Ors. reported in 2007(1) WLC (SC) and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chand reported in 1996 ACJ 831 held that the claimants of victim child in the age group of 5 to 10 years shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has not been able to 3 distinguish the aforesaid judgment as to why the ratio thereof should not be applied to the present case. In the circumstances, the principle of dependency appears to have been misapplied by the Tribunal in the impugned order. This appeal therefore deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The award of the Tribunal is set aside and it is accordingly held that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition after adjusting the amount already paid. The appeal is accordingly allowed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/