Mr. G.R. Moolchandani, J.

This appeal is directed against the award dated 10.06.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Abu Road in Claim Case No.233/1996 by which the Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 77,000/-.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that deceased Sanjay Kumar was a 13 years old child studying in 8th standard and was negligently crushed by the bus involved in the accident. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Tribunal has passed erroneous order and has not awarded any notional income. Referring to judgment in Ratan and another v. Rakesh Jain & anr, 2014 (1) WLC (Raj.) 599, learned counsel has contended that the notional income ought to have been computed and a multiplicand of 15 must have been applied and on this basis award must have been passed. However, the Tribunal has ignored the legal mandate and has passed an award in sum of Rs. 77,000/-, which is liable to be enhanced in consideration of notional income of the deceased. So appeal be allowed and the compensation may be granted, as prayed. Counsel for the respondent-Oriental Insurance Company has contended that the driver was having a learning license and the Tribunal has passed correct award so there is no reason to enhance the same.

3. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that Mohan Lal, father of the deceased child was examined as AW1 and one other witness Laxman was produced and examined as AW2, respondent-Oriental Insurance Company has also testified NAW1. While deciding issue No.1, Tribunal has dealt with and elucidated evidence adduced before it, which discloses age of deceased child having been stated to be of 13 years and studying in 8th standard in Government Senior Higher Secondary School, Sarupganj.

4. There is a noting on front page of lower court's record and "sarbarak" does have a mentioning that Part-B of the record stands weeded out.

5. The Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 77,000/- and compensation awarded under different heads is as under:

6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, examined the impugned award and material available on record.

7. In Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd and another, AIR 2014 SC 736, law relating to disability caused to children has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd, AIR 1995 SC 755, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:

"....while assessing the non-pecuniary damages, the damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered and that are likely to be suffered, any future damages for the loss of amenities in life like difficulty in running, participation in active sports, etc., damages on account of inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, etc., have to be addressed especially in the case of a child victim. For a child, the best part of his life is yet to come. While considering the claim by a victim child, it would be unfair and improper to follow the structured formula as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for reasons more than one. The main stress in the formula is on pecuniary damages. For children there is no income. The only indication in the Second Schedule for non-earning persons is to take the notional income as Rs. 15,000/- per year. A child cannot be equated to such a non-earning person. Therefore, the compensation is to be worked out under the non-pecuniary heads in addition to the actual amounts incurred for treatment done and/or to be done, transportation, assistance of attendant, etc. The main elements of damag