JUDGMENT : R.N. Mishra, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in an appeal u/s 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') wherein the learned Judge reversed the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the accident in question was not the outcome of negligence on the part of the truck driver and directed remand of the dispute to the Tribunal for assessment of compensation after allowing parties to lead evidence. 2. The claim arose in the following circumstances: On 16th of March, 1967 at about of 5 o' clock in the afternoon the claimants' son, a young boy of 5, was riding a tri-cycle on the embankment of river Kathjori. Another young boy by name Santosii was on the same tri-cycle on the pillion. The river embankment at the material place is close to a major town road but i at a height of about 3 to 4 feet. These two young boys riding the tri-cycle glided down the gradient of the embankment to the road at a time when a truck bearing registration number ORG 2875 was running on the road itself. The right side rear wheel of the truck ran over the young boy on the tri-cycle and caused his instantaneous death. Santosh was also injured but he scrambled upto the embankment road for safety shortly after the accident. The police arrived at the spot on being informed of the unhappy incident, the damaged tri-cycle was seized and the truck was found to be standing at a short distance from the spot of accident. In due course a claim of Rs. 50/00/-was lodged under the Act before the Claims Tribunal by the parents of the deceased boy. One Mrs. Ichhamani Choudhury was impleaded as the owner of the truck and Premier Insurance Company Ltd. was added as the insurer of the vehicle. Subsequently the present Appellant Basanta Kumar Sahu was added on the allegation that he was the true owner of the truck. Ichhamani did not enter contest. The insurer in its written statement disputed ownership of Ichhamani It was claimed that the insurance was vitiated on account of fraud and mis-representation. It was also contended that the accident was on account of negligence of the claimants' son and, therefore, no compensation was at all payable. Ichhamani did not enter contest. The insurer in its written statement disputed ownership of Ichhamani It was claimed that the insurance was vitiated on account of fraud and mis-representation. It was also contended that the accident was on account of negligence of the claimants' son and, therefore, no compensation was at all payable. The present Appellant as opposite party No. 3 denied ownership of the vehicle and took the stand that there was no valid insurance for it. Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimants examined eight witnesses while the present Appellant examined two witnesses. Several documents were executed on the claimants' side. The Tribunal came to hold that the accident, occurred suddenly and unexpectedly and was not the outcome of rashness or negligence on the part of driver of the truck. He recorded a finding that the present Appellant was the transferee of the vehicle from Ichhamani and the vehicle stood insured with the insurer in question. Therefore, if the owner was liable to compensate under the statute subject to limitation set therein, the insurer was bound to reimburse. He, however, dismissed the claim holding that the driver of the truck was not guilty of any rash or negligent act. 3. The claimants appealed and two questions were mainly canvassed before our learned Brother: (i) Whether the truck was being driven at the relevant time rashly or negligently? and (ii) What would be the appropriate quantum of compensation? The learned Single Judge relied upon the ratio of a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sabite Pati and Others Vs. Rameshwar Singh and Another and the rule in the case of Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and Another Vs. R.M.K. Veluswami and Others, and applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and appreciating the evidence on record, on an application of the rule, our learned Brother held that the occurrence took place on account of negligence on the part of the driver. The learned Single Judge, however, thought it proper to remand the matter for quantification of compensation and permitted the Tribunal to allow parties to lead further evidence. This decision of the learned Single Judge is impugned in appeal. 4. Several grounds had been raised and the memorandum of appeal challenging the correctness of the finding regarding negligence. The learned Single Judge, however, thought it proper to remand the matter for quantification of compensation and permitted the Tribunal to allow parties to lead further evidence. This decision of the learned Single Judge is impugned in appeal. 4. Several grounds had been raised and the memorandum of appeal challenging the correctness of the finding regarding negligence. At the hearing, however, counsel found it difficult to support the grounds raised and ultimately agreed that the facts of the case were such that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did apply. In view of a series of decisions indicating circumstances where the rule has been applied, learned Counsel ultimately did not think it worthwhile to challenge the finding regarding negligence of the driver. 5. The only other question that remained was remand for consideration of the quantum of compensation. Both sides suggested to us at the hearing that there would be no purpose in remanding the matter and on the evidence already on record, it is appropriate that we dispose of the case by fixing a reasonable quantum of compensation. The compensation of Rs. 50,000/-had been claimed under two heads i. e. Rs. 30,000/- as loss of future benefit on account of the death and Rs. 20,000/-representing compensation for mental agony. It is conceded before us that under the act no compensation for mental agony can be claimed and paid. 6. On the ground that the deceased was a mere boy of 5, the Appellant as also Mr. Roy for the insurance company claimed that no compensation was payable for the death of such a non-earning member. The stand of these counsel is that the deceased was himself a liability on the family because he had no earning capacity of present and considerable money had to be spent to maintain him. This logic does not appeal to us. It is true that at the time of occurrence, the deceased was not earning, but prospects of earning, particularly keeping the community to which the claimants belonged, could not be overlooked. At the hearing, claimants' counsel referred to us to some of the decisions where, in facts of this type compensation has been held admissible. Taking an over-all picture of the matter, we think it would be appropriate to fix compensatian at Rs. 8,000/-. At the hearing, claimants' counsel referred to us to some of the decisions where, in facts of this type compensation has been held admissible. Taking an over-all picture of the matter, we think it would be appropriate to fix compensatian at Rs. 8,000/-. We have not thought it necessary to give detailed reasons for the amount because after a number of cases were cited and We were feeling inclined to quantify the compensation at Rs. 10,000/-, Mr. Roy for the insurance company came forward with a suggestion that Rs. 10,000/- would be on the higher side and we would do well to grant a reasonable reduction. 7. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of remand and allow compensation of a rupees eight thousand. Mr. Mohanty claimed interest. In the peculiar facts of this case, we have not thought it appropriate to allow interest on the amount of compensation. The claimants shall, however, be entitled to costs of the proceedings which we assess at Rs. 500/- in lump. Since under the satutory provisions, the entire liability has to be borne by the insurer, we direct that the Insurance Company (Respondent No. 3 herein) shall bear the entire liability of Rs. 8,500/- (Eight thousand and five hundred) and pay the same either to the claimants or into the court of the Claims Tribunal within three months hence. If the amount be not paid as directed, future interest from today shall run at the rate of six per cent until payment. N.K. Das, J. 8. I agree.