Jayant Nath, J.

1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Award dated 10.10.2012.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.05.2010 at about 5.00 am, while the deceased was driving his motorcycle near Rajdhani Park, Rohtak Road, Delhi, the offending vehicle which was being driven by Respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased from behind. The deceased fell down and succumbed to his injuries.

3. The Tribunal based on the evidence held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3.

4. On compensation, the Tribunal awarded the following amount:-

(i)	Loss of dependency	Rs. 11,66,400/-
(ii)	Love and affection	Rs. 1,00,000/-
(iii)	Funeral charges	Rs. 10,000/-
(iv)	Loss of estate	Rs. 10,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 12,86,400/-

5. As the deceased was 16 years old and a student of a reputed school, the Tribunal took the potential income of the deceased to be Rs. 10,800/- per month. The Tribunal deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor. Further, based on the age of the deceased i.e. 16 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency. The Tribunal thus calculated the loss of dependency as Rs. 11,66,400/-.

6. The Tribunal had relied upon the judgment of this High Court in the case of United Indian Insurance Co. v. Kanwar Lal & Ors. in MAC APP.385/2007 dated 27.04.2012 to assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,800/- per month.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has impugned the award. She firstly submits that the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the judgment of the United Indian Insurance Co. v. Kanwar Lal & Ors. (supra) inasmuch as in the said judgment the deceased was 18 years old whereas in the present case the deceased is less than 16 years old. It is urged that the appropriate judgment to follow would be R.K. Malik and Anr. v. Kiran Pal & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 2506 where the Supreme Court had fixed the notional income of the minor based on the second Sehedule to the M.V. Act. i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per annum. It is secondly submitted that there was no evidence to show that the deceased was earning any amount. Hence, the notional income of Rs. 10,800/- per month has erroneously been taken. It is further contended that the multiplier of 18 has wrongly been taken by the Tribunal while assessing the loss of dependency. Learned counsel submits that this should have been 15.

8. In my opinion, there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Her entire submissions are squarely dealt with by a latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of V. Mekala v. M. Malathi and Anr., 2014 ACJ 1441. In the said case of V. Mekala v. M. Malathi and Anr., (supra) the injured student was studying in Class XI and was aged 16 years. The Supreme Court took the notional income of Rs. 10,000/- per month.

9. Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashwinibhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma & Anr., 2014 (11) SCALE 427 which was a case of a medical student aged 19 years. The Supreme Court took the notional income of Rs. 25,000/- per annum.

10. In the present case as per the evidence of PW-1, Mr. Rajpal, the father of the deceased, his son/the deceased had passed the matriculation examination and he was an intelligent and hard working person who was having a bright future. The Secondary School Certificate is marked as PW- 1/2. There is no cross-examination on this aspect of PW-1. There are no reasons to modify the findings of the Tribunal assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,800/- per month.

11. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Tribu