JUDGMENT : B.N. Sapru, J.—Roop Singh Bhadoria is the Appellant in the case. His son, Pappu, aged about 4-5 years along with his brother was crossing the road near the school of village Sarai Jalal at about 12-30 p.m. on 4.6.1974. At that time he died as a result of the motor accident which involved truck No. RSQ 5374. 2. Immediately after the accident a first information report was lodged in which it was stated that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver thereof and as a result of the rash and negligent driving, the child had been killed in the accident. 3. Roop Singh Bhadoria filed his claim under the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 35,000/- as compensation. The claim was subsequently reduced to Rs. 7,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has recorded a positive finding that Pappu aged about 4-5 years died as a result of the accident which involved truck No. RSQ 5374 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. It took note of the fact that the driver of the vehicle had not been produced. The Tribunal rightly relied upon the testimony of P.W. 2, Girish Chand, who deposed about the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. This witness was named in the first information report as an eye-witness. The Tribunal while holding the driver of the truck negligent, rejected the claim petition on two counts. They are: (1) that the Appellant in his statement had claimed damages but not specified in his testimony under what head or heads he is claiming damages; and (2) that the mother of the deceased child had not been joined in the petition either as a claimant or had been impleaded as a Respondent. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Claims Tribunal, the Appellant has come up in appeal. 5. It is urged that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that the mother of the deceased had not been joined in the petition or had been impleaded as a Respondent in the petition. In this connection the learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon two decisions. The first case is of Pijush Kanti Ghosh Vs. Sm. Maya Rani Chatterjee and Others,. In this connection the learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon two decisions. The first case is of Pijush Kanti Ghosh Vs. Sm. Maya Rani Chatterjee and Others,. In paragraph 47 of the judgment it was held that neither the omission to implead all the heirs to the estate of the deceased person in the proceedings will affect the maintainability of the application for compensation and, it further held that, nor the powers of the Tribunal is limited to award compensation only in favour of the persons who have actually made the claim. 6. The next decision relied upon by the learned Counsel is a decision in the case of M. Basvalingiah and Anr. v. T.P. Papanna and Ors. 1971 A.C.J. 404 (Mys.). In paragraphs 22 and 23 of that judgment, it has been observed as follows: 22. Mr. Bhanthamallapa next relied on the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Himachal Government Transport, Simla and Another Vs. Joginder Singh and Another. There, the father of two boys who died of an automobile accident filed a claim application u/s 110-A of the Act. That application was resisted on the ground that the claim should have been made both on behalf of the father and the mother of the deceased and that as the father alone had made the claim, no amount could be awarded in respect of the loss caused to the mother. Repelling that contention, Sodhi, J., Observed that under the Fatal Accidents Act, compensation is available to all those members of the family who suffer monetary loss as a result of the death of a member by accident, that the father is also entitled to compensation as a member of the family and that it is not necessary that all the members of the family should join as claimant. 23. In the light of the above decisions it is clear that under the Fatal Accidents Act, the father of the deceased, is one of the persons who is entitled to the benefit of the compensation and that he can bring a claim petition as a representative of the person deceased. The view taken by the Tribunal that the father of the deceased is not a legal representative of the deceased, who can make a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Act, is clearly unsustainable. The view taken by the Tribunal that the father of the deceased is not a legal representative of the deceased, who can make a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Act, is clearly unsustainable. In that view, it is immaterial whether Appellant 2, the mother of the deceased, did or did not join in that claim petition. It also becomes unnecessary to go into the question whether Appellant 2 (the mother) was prevented by sufficient cause from making the claim for compensation within the time fixed in Section 110-A. 7. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it is manifest that the Tribunal erred in holding that the petition was not maintainable in view of the fact that the mother of the deceased had neither joined the claim petition as a claimant nor had been impleaded as a Respondent. 8. It is next submitted that having found the driver negligent, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation on the ground that the Appellant had not disclosed that under what head the Appellant was claiming damage. In cases where young child die as a result of motor accident, the claim for compensation is based on expectation of a future happy life. In the case of Madhu alias M.C. Madappa and Another Vs. Mahadeva and Others, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that more or less a compensation amounting to Rs. 6,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the presentation of the claim petition till payment was sufficient. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the claim petition is decreed in the sum of Rs. 6,000/- on which amount the Appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the presentation of the claim petition till the date of payment of deposit before the Tribunal. If the amount is deposited with the Tribunal, it shall be paid over to the Appellant. There will be no order as to costs.