JUDGMENT : Maharajan, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras awarding a compensation of Rs. 5000/- u/s 111-A of the Motor Vehicles Act to the mother of a 3 1/2 year old child Ramesh, who, at about 7.30 P.M. on 11.6.1967 at T.P. Koil Street, Triplicane, Madras was run over by a Taxi No. MSP 7797 belonging to one Narasimha Mudaliar, the second Respondent herein and insured with the Motor Owners' Insurance Company Ltd., the Appellant herein. The Tribunal held that the accident involving the death of the child Ramesh was due to the rash and negligent driving of the taxi and that consequently the legal representative of the child was entitled to Rs. 5000/- by way of compensation. The factum of the accident is not in dispute, but the more important question is whether it was due to the rashness and negligence of the child or of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the taxi. Ex. P.1 is the sketch of the scene and it shows that T.P. Koil Street, which runs north to south, is 37' in width east to west. The child, who was going along the eastern border of the street was called by his brother P.W. 4, who was walking along the western border. Thereupon the child crossed the street in a westerly direction. After he had travelled a distance of 22', the taxi, which was going in a northerly direction, knocked against the child, causing an abdominal injury, which resulted in fatal damage to the liver. The evidence of P.W. 4 is to the effect that the taxi came very fast and hit against the child. The driver of the taxi has not been put into the box to explain away the circumstances under which the accident took place. We are therefore left only with the uncontradicted testimony of P.W. 4 to the effect that the taxi was driven at a high speed. There is also the fact that the scene of the accident is flanked on either side with a number of residential houses and the child, who was a toddler, had come about 22' from the eastern border of the road when the impact took place. There is also the fact that the scene of the accident is flanked on either side with a number of residential houses and the child, who was a toddler, had come about 22' from the eastern border of the road when the impact took place. If the driver had had a clear look out and had driven the taxi less rashly, he would have been able to sight the child from at a distance and to swerve the taxi to the left or to the right or to apply the brake in time and avoid the accident. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would rely upon the evidence of P.W. 2 Sub-Inspector of Police to the effect that his investigation revealed that the pedestrian child was at fault. This opinion evidence is based upon what P.W. 2 inferred from such evidence as he could gather. The court cannot substitute the opinion of P.W. 2 for its own judgment especially when the witnesses examined by P.W. 2 have not been examined before the Court. In these circumstances, I do not think that the court below was wrong in arriving at the conclusion that the accident was the result of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the taxi. 3. Upon the question of quantum of damages in respect of the death of an infant, I have discussed it at great length in Perumal and Another Vs. State of Madras, I have held there that the damages may normally be fixed at Rs. 5000/-. No doubt there may be other peculiar circumstances which might influence the court to reduce or enhance this amount. But in this case, I think the Tribunal was right in fixing the compensation at Rs. 5000/-. 4. In the result, the appeal fails and will stand dismissed with costs.