HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.694 of 2009 JUDGMENT: Insurer is the appellant. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kadapa in M.V.O.P.No.732 of 2004 by award dated 21.03.2006 awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for death of minor boy Reddy Manohar Reddy, aged 7 years doing his 3rd Standard and who died in motor accident, which took place on 29.04.2004. Factum of accident is not in dispute in this appeal. There can be no attribution of contributory negligence to the deceased boy as he was a minor boy aged 7 years and as he was incapable of having any mental state resulting in either rashness or negligence. Therefore, the lower Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Van bearing No.AP 04 U 2083. In my opinion, amount of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal is appropriate, just and reasonable. Since the deceased was a boy, aged 7 years, he has no income of his own. Further in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the Supreme Court did not prescribe multiplier for a deceased who was aged up to 15 years. The Supreme Court noted that no multiplier for the age up to 15 years was stated in UP State Road Transport Corporation v Trilok Chandra, I (1996) ACC 592(SC), as clarified in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v Charlie, III (2005) SLT 501. Therefore, some useful guidance may be taken from Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act with regard to notional income and the multiplier to be adopted in a case of this nature. The second schedule prescribes notional income of Rs.15,000/- per year in the case of a person having no income and gives ‘15’ as multiplier in the case of a person aged upto 15 years. If 1/3rd of his income is deducted towards personal expenditure, then the multiplicand comes to Rs.10,000/- per year and the compensation amount comes to Rs.10,000 X 15 = Rs.1,50,000/- . This formula was found favour by this Court previously in National Insurance Company Limited v Pittala Ramulu[2]. Further this formula is not in any way contrary to the Supreme Court in Manju Devi v Musafir Paswan[3]. Interest of 7.5% per annum awarded by the lower Tribunal is also not in any way excessive or inappropriate. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 24th November, 2010. PNV [1] 2009 (6) Scale 129 [2] 2006(5) ALT, 688 [3] 2005 ACJ 99