Hon’ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.—We have heard Dr. S.B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Anand Kumar Tripathi, Advocate holding brief Sri Amresh Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company - respondent No. 3. None appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the deceased Dilip Kumar, aged about 11 years was son of claimant. He was going to medical store alongwith his uncle in the evening of 26.6.2000 and a truck bearing No. BR-14 G 0939 coming from Gursahaiganj Side crushed him, resulting his death on the spot. Truck was surrounded by local villagers and shop keepers and truck driver and cleaner left the truck on the spot and ran away. Uncle of the deceased had lodged the F.I.R. and later on, appellants filed Claim Petition No. 81/70/2000 (Darshan Lal and others v. Krishan Kumar Gupta and others), under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj, which was decided vide judgment and award dated 14.9.2001. While deciding the claim petition, after exchange of pleadings, Tribunal has framed three issues:

^^1- D;k iz'uxr nq?kZVuk Vªd la[;k chŒvkjŒ 14th@0939 ls ?kfVr gqbZ] ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i fnyhi dqekj dh e`R;q gqbZA

2- D;k ;kfpdk esa pkgk x;k izfrdkj ;kphx.k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn ,slk gS rks fdruk izfrdkj] vkSj fdllsA

3- vuqrks"k**

3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 14.9.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 81/70/2000 (Darshan Lal and others v. Krishan Kumar Gupta and others), by which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 52,000/- alongwith 15% interest per annum as compensation, filed appeal before this Court.

4. Challenging the impugned judgment and award, Dr. Singh has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the compensation on the basis of item No. 1 of 2nd Schedule appended to Section 163 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). In his submissions, in respect of appellants, the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the item No. 6 of the schedule, which talks about the notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident, i.e., Rs. 15,000/- per annum. He has also submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, (2014 (1) SCC 244); wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court, taking note of the fact that the value of rupee has come down drastically from the year 1994 (when 2nd schedule of 1994 was inserted), when the notional income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs. 15,000/-, has fixed Rs. 30,000/- per annum as notional income. In his submissions, the Tribunal ought to have fixed notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 30,000/- and by applying the multiplier of 15. He has also contended that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance, 2016 (3) SCC 100, the liability of payment of compensation ought to have been imposed upon the insurance company, maybe with a right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In his submissions, mere breach of insurance policy cannot be a ground for the insurance company to escape from the liability of payment of the awarded amount; unless, the breach is so fundamental in nature that it brings the contract ceased.

5. Rebutting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Sinha submitted that in the case of Putamma and others v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) TAC 926 SC, the Hon’ble Apex Court has fixed the amount of compensation of the deceased, who was minor and was non-earning member of the family, to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- and not more than that. He has further contended that in view of the fact that the appellants have not taken any ground in the appeal with regard to shifting of the liability of p