JUDGMENT : K.B. Panda, J.—This is an appeal u/s 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 Act IV of 1939 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) preferred by the father against an award of compensation of Rs. 1,600/- on account of the death of his son Dayanidhi Bhuyan in a truck accident on the ground that it is abnormally low. 2. The deceased Dayanidhi Bhuyan was a labourer aged about 18 to 20 years, earning at the rate of Rs. 3/- per day. On 1.4.1970 while the truck bearing registration number ORP 2012 was coming from Banpur side towards Pipli, near village Banapur it dashed against the victim Dayanidhi in consequence of which he received several injuries and died in course of the night at Puri Hospital. The father of the deceased laid a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri (hereinafter called the Tribunal) of Rs. 35,000/-. The owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company resisted the claim on the ground that the driver was neither rash nor negligent and the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased. 3. On the claimant's side, three witnesses were examined of whom the claimant is P. W. 1 and on the side of the opposite parties, two witnesses were examined. The learned Tribunal held that though there was no rashness on the part of the driver, he was negligent resulting in the accident and death of Dayanidhi. However he calculated the quantum of compensation on the basis of the expectancy of the life of the father who was aged fifty. According to the Tribunal, the deceased would be contributing Rs. 30/- per month and if the expectancy of the life of the father would be sixty, then the annual contribution to him would be Rs. 360/- and giving allowances for days the deceased would have gone without work, he brought down the annual contribution to Rs. 200/-. Thus calculating it for ten years, he fixed the total compensation at Rs. 2,000/- But since it was being granted at a time, he slashed it down to Rs. 1,600/-. The father-claimant is aggrieved because of this low compensation granted. 4. 200/-. Thus calculating it for ten years, he fixed the total compensation at Rs. 2,000/- But since it was being granted at a time, he slashed it down to Rs. 1,600/-. The father-claimant is aggrieved because of this low compensation granted. 4. It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that this is a very mechanical and niggardly way of assessment of compensation in the case of the death of a major son who was the future hope of the family. In such matters, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how the quantum of compensation is to be assessed. If the standard taken by the Tribunal is universally applied, it would lead to absurdity. For instance, if a father of 60 years loses his son in an accident, he will get nothing Similarly when a child of 9 or 10 years who has not been able to earn anything is killed, the claimant will get nothing. Different High Courts are not unaware of such a situation. That is why in M.A. Rahim and Another Vs. Sayani Bai, when a boy aged 12 years was killed by an accident, the compensation awarded was Rs. 25,000/-. In case reported in Kasturilal Gopaldas and Another Vs. Prabhakar Martand Patki and Another, for the death of a boy aged 13 years a compensation of Rs. 19,500/ was given In a case reported in The The General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Jayalakhmi Ammal and Others, a coolly earning Rs. 60/- per month was killed and a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was granted. Similarly in the case reported in Pee Key Carriers and Others Vs. Kaushalya Devi and Others, the claimants of the deceased who was earring Rs. 75/- per month and aged about 35 years, were granted a compensation of Rs. 12,000/-. In a case reported in Hari Chand and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) he deceased was 18 years old and his income was nil. However, it was disbelieved that he was helping his parents financially but a compensation of Rs. 12,000/- was awarded. 5. It is in evidence that the deceased has younger brothers and sisters, the mother having died about a year and a half when the claimant deposed. The eldest son of a family is not only the future hope of the father on whom he has to lean, but more often than not. 12,000/- was awarded. 5. It is in evidence that the deceased has younger brothers and sisters, the mother having died about a year and a half when the claimant deposed. The eldest son of a family is not only the future hope of the father on whom he has to lean, but more often than not. is the future hope of the entire family and much more so in case of the death of the Karta of the family. In saying this, all that I mean to suggest, is that the arithmetical calculation made by the Tribunal can hardly be taken as a universal yardstick for assessing the quantum of compensation. It would depend upon various circumstances. Merely because one who has been killed in an accident was earning nothing will not mean that his or her legal representatives will not get anything. If an instance is taken, a wife who is dependent upon her husband, it would be fallacious, to say that if such a wife is killed, the husband will get nothing. In the instant case the finding being that the deceased had been killed due to the negligence of the driver. I would hold that really the compensation awarded is very niggardly and mechanical. If the deceased is taken to be aged about 20 years and his contribution to the family would be at Rs. 30/- per month, giving all allowance for ailment or no work, yet it comes to Rs. 360/- per year and if his life expectancy is 60 years, his contribution to the family as such would have been Rs. 14,400/-. Be that as it may, in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the father-claimant would be getting it at a time. I would consider a lump sum of Rs. 10,000/- to be the proper compensation in this case. Since I was told that the father has already received Rs. 1,600/- the balance of Rs. 8,400/- would be paid to him. I, therefore direct that the balance of Rs. 8400/- (Rupees eight thousand and four hundred only) be paid to the claimant-Appellant by Respondent No. 2 the Insurance Company within two months hence. To avoid any future complications the Insurance Company may issue a Bank Draft in the name of the claimant for the said amount of Rs. I, therefore direct that the balance of Rs. 8400/- (Rupees eight thousand and four hundred only) be paid to the claimant-Appellant by Respondent No. 2 the Insurance Company within two months hence. To avoid any future complications the Insurance Company may issue a Bank Draft in the name of the claimant for the said amount of Rs. 8,400/- within the stipulated time under registered post with acknowledgment due in the address as given in the claim petition, within two months from to-day, failing which, the amount will carry interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from today. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the lower Court is modified to the extent indicated above.