Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and Counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the judgment impugned. None has put in appearance on behalf of first respondent.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of the compensation as awarded vide judgment and award dated 15.9.2009 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Bahraich in MACP No. 201 of 2007 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rupees one lac only with 6% interest per anum towards compensation.

3. In short, the factual matrix of the case is as follows :

4. Shanti Devi, appellant No. 1 is the mother of deceased-Vinod Pal whereas appellants Nos. 2 to 6 are brother and sisters of the deceased. They had preferred Claim Petition No. 210 of 2007 seeking compensation for the death of young boy-Vinod Pal by a bus bearing registration No. DL 1P/2744. It is said that deceased Vinod Pal, a young lad of 12 years, was going to attend school at about 10 AM on 16.12.2006 by foot and when he reached near Primary School, Mukeria, a bus bearing registration No. DL 1P/2744 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver crushed the boy under the wheels, resulting in spontaneous death of Vinod Pal on the spot. His prospective monthly income has been mentioned as Rs. 5000/- per month by the claimants-appellants.

5. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the Tribunal formulated four issues and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence led by both the parties recorded a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bus No DL-1P/2744, which resulted into death of Vinod Pal.

6. As regard the issue No. 5, which is with regard to entitlement of amount of compensation and from whom, the learned Tribunal observed that claimant No. 1 Smt. Shanti Devi herself got examined as P.W.1 and stated that her deceased son was a school going child and her elder son is aged 18 years. She had also deposed that she has five children and the deceased was the youngest one amongst them. No evidence was lead with regard to the status of the family. Therefore, the Tribunal considering all these aspects of the matter awarded a sum of Rupees One lac as compensation which was to be paid by the Insurance Company, with which the bus was insured.

7. The assertion of the appellants is that while awarding the compensation, the Tribunal has completely failed to consider that the grant of compensation is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such ought to have applied multiplier to the prospective income of the deceased, therefore, the amount of compensation is inadequate. Furthermore, no amount has been awarded under the head of funeral expenses, loss of estate, love and affection. In these circumstances, the amount of compensation is very meager and needs enhancement.

8. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the Delhi High Court in the case of Chetan Malhotra v. Lala Ram and other connected cases (decided on 13.5.2016) while giving reference to various pronouncement observed that in the case of R.K.Malik v. Kiran Pal; (2009) (14) SCC 1, the Apex Court has held that compensation for loss of dependency, by its very nature, is awarded for prospective or future loss and, therefore, it cannot be allowed to be argued that death of a child who is “still studying and not working” does not result in any pecuniary loss. But, the challenge before the tribunals and Courts in determining “just and reasonable” compensation in such cases stems from the fact that there is virtually no evidence of actual loss of earnings of the deceased child.

9. Refuting the allegations of the appellants, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the Tribunal has granted just compensation considering all aspect of the matter and there is no illegality or infirmity in the