D. R. Khaona ( 1 ) THE sole controversy involved in this appeal against the award dated 21. 7. 73 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, pertains to the quantum of compensation. It has arisen from a road accident which took place at Rohtak Road on 1. 5. 1968 at about 2. 45 p. m. Ram Karan, deceased, was then sitting on the pillion seat of a two-wheeler scooter No. DLQ-1277 driven by Ishwar Singh. Bus No. HRG-420 driven by Dharam Pal Singh, respondent No. 1, and operated and owned by Haryana Roadways and the Haryana State, respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively, at that time came from behind at a fast speed and without blowing any horn, dashed against the scooter and over ran and killed Ram Karan. Ishwar Singh was also thrown off and received injuries. ( 2 ) RAM Karan at that time was 17 years of age, and was a student of 10th class. His father Hazari Lal was an agriculturist, and according to him. Ram Karan used to help him in the agriculture operation. ( 3 ) A claim for a compensation of Rs. 50. 000. 00 was filed by Ram Karan s father Hazari Lal aged about 50 years and mother Smt. Risalo, aged 45 years, under the Motor Vehicles Act. This, however, was allowed by thetribunal to the extent of Rs. 10,000. 00 only. It was held that the death of Ram Karan and injuries received by Ishwar Singh were the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus by Dharam Pal Singh, driver. The compensation allowed to Ishwar Singh was of Rs. 1,600. 00 only. ( 4 ) SO far as the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by the bus driver, the same has not been disputed in this appeal. That part of the controversy is, therefore, no longer open. Hazari Lal and Smt. Risalo appellants, however, have pleaded, that the amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 allowed as compensation to them on the death of Ram Karan was too inadequate and the same should be enhanced to Rs. 30. 000. 00. A number of decisions have been cited from both the sides in which various amounts of compensation ranging from Rs. 10,000. 00 to Rs. 24,600. 00 were allowed by different courts. The respondent placed reliance on Mrs. 30. 000. 00. A number of decisions have been cited from both the sides in which various amounts of compensation ranging from Rs. 10,000. 00 to Rs. 24,600. 00 were allowed by different courts. The respondent placed reliance on Mrs. Savitri Devi and another v. Malerkotia Bus Service (P) Ltd. and others1 and Hari Chand and another v. Union of India2, in which cases compensations were restricted to Rs. 10,000. 00 and Rs. 12,000. 00 respectively, the deceased being 17 and 18 years old. The accidents in these cases took place considerable time back. There is no gain-saying that the value of rupee since then has considerably fallen, and its purchasing power has substantially dwindled. Therefore, what was considered as reasonable compensation for an accident which took place in 1960, would hardly provide a fair guide to an accident taking place a decade later. ( 5 ) THE petitioners on their part have referred to the Kasturi Lal and another v. Prabhakar and another3, Punjabhai Prabhudas and Co. and others v. Sakinaben Mohammadbhai and others4 and United India Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. S. Saraswati Bai and others5, in which cases compensations of Rs. 19,500. 00, Rs. 22,000. 00 and Rs. 24,600. 00 were awarded on the death of persons of ages 13 years, 21 years and 15 years respectively. ( 6 ) THE general principle is that pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefits, and on the other any pecuniary advantage which will come to them by reason of death. The expectancy of life of the deceased having regards to his age, bodily health and the possibility of premature determination of his life by accident or causes are also taken into account. At the same time, the mental anguish and lingering vacuum which the parents or claimants have to suffer throughout their lives on account of the death of the deceased are factors which cannot be lightly ignored, and not unoften they over-weigh with them the monetary loss. ( 7 ) IN the present case, the deceased was 17 years of age, and studying in 10th class of a school. His father was an agriculturist, and he as such, as is usual amongst the children of agriculturist, was helping him in farming. ( 7 ) IN the present case, the deceased was 17 years of age, and studying in 10th class of a school. His father was an agriculturist, and he as such, as is usual amongst the children of agriculturist, was helping him in farming. He would have continued to do so, but for the untimely tragic death. As already observed above, the cost of living is showing consistent upward trend and the value of rupee is gradually falling. Considering all these factors, 1 am of the opinion that the compensation awarded in the present case was highly inadequate. The same is enhanced to Rs. 22,000. 00.