Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. At the request of both the parties, service of respondent No. 3 is dispensed with. Since a very short point is involved in this appeal, therefore, it is being disposed of at this stage.
(2.) It is admitted that deceased Khim Singh was of 9-10 years old and the teamed Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,40,000/- on the basis of second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that amount awarded by the Tribunal is wrong in view of the fact that income of the non-earning member as provided in Schedule can be only Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Out of which, one third amount required to be deducted as provided in Schedule, therefore, annual income excluding the one third is Rs. 10,000/- and in case multiplier of 15 is applied, then it comes to Rs. 1,50,000/- only.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondents disputed this proposition and submitted that Schedule has been prepared and from the bare perusal of Schedule, it is crystal clear that the calculation of compensation amount has not been made by simply multiplication of income by multiplier which is clear from all the calculation given for the compensation in case Schedule.;