( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. H. G. Ramesh for respondent insurance company.

( 2 ) THE parents of one Andanaiah aged about 14 years have approached this court for enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal because of the death of the said boy. Andanaiah had died because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing registration No. CAM 1958. The lorry ran over the deceased student on 19. 11. 1996 when he was proceeding towards his school on his bicycle. The lorry was insured with the respondent No. 2 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The tribunal under the impugned judgment and award has granted compensation of rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of companionship, pain and mental agony suffered by the appellants being the parents of the deceased and Rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses.

( 3 ) THE counsel for the appellants states that keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Haji zainullah Khan (Dead) by L. Rs. v. Nagar mahapalika, Allahabad, 1994 ACJ 993 (SC), the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation of at least Rs. 1,50,000 for loss of child to the family. On the other hand, Mr. Ramesh relies on a judgment in the case of General Manager, Karnataka state Road Trans. Corpn. v. Yellappa dharmoji Kittur, 1988 ACJ 556 (Karnataka ). In the latter case, this court had the occasion to deal with the grant of sation in the case of death of young chil- dren. Though the question regarding grant of compensation on account of alleged loss of dependency was negatived, this court did not say that no compensation at all can be awarded for the death of a child because of motor accident. This court has said that awards are made in such cases in merely conventional sums. Para 4 of the judgment reads as under:" (4) It is no doubt true that in cases of very young children, no basis exists for estimating the future pecuniary benefits which the parents could be said to have lost by the death. The prospects of em- ployment and of financial assistance to the parents, who look up to their dutiful and grateful children, are so remote in the future that any estimates tend to become mere speculative possibilities than reasonable probabilities. Such esti- mates of chances of future monetary contributions to the parents are pressed into extinction by multiple uncertainties and imponderables of the future. It is, therefore, that awards are made in such cases in merely conventional sums. By these tests no award can, in the case of very young children, be made for loss of future pecuniary benefits. "

( 4 ) THEREFORE, Mr. Ramesh is not correct in saying that when a non-earning member of the family, may be a child of 14 years or 20 years suffers death because of the road accident, the loss suffered by the family is not required to be compensated. Fhe compensation, no doubt, will be more in the nature of a money solace. But, aonetheless, it needs to be quantified.

( 5 ) IN the case of Haji Zainullah Khan, 1994 ACJ 993 (SC), the Supreme Court, while dealing with the question of compen- sation payable in respect of a student of 14 years, has held that Rs. 1,50,000 will be a just compensation. We can take this to be the conventional amount for awarding :ompensation for non-earning members of the family like the young children and students. This view of ours now finds support from the Schedule II to the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that compennotional income for the purpose of compensation to those who had no income can be taken to be Rs. 15,000 per annum out of which 1/3rd has to be deducted for the notional personal expenses and thereafter on application of appropriate multiplier, the compensation can be ascertained. The multiplier for the children aged up to 15 years has been set out as ' 15'. On applying the same, the compensation payable in case of the children up to 15 years will come to Rs. 1,50,000.

( 6 ) THEREFORE, we enhance the compensation by Rs. 50,000. So,