JUDGMENT P.D. Mulye, J. 1. This appeal filed by the claimant-Appellant under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against an award dated 3.9.77 passed by the Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dewas, in Claim Case No. 1 of 1976, whereby the compensation claim for Rs.20,000/- has been dismissed. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, which no longer in dispute, are that on 9.11.74 a girl aged about 5 years, namely Savitri who was easing on the side of the road in village Banger on the Ujjain-Dewas road was crushed under truck number MPI-397 which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver Girdhar resulting in the instantaneous death of the child. The owner of the said truck was Kulvir Singh, which was registered with the United India Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. The claimant, who is the maternal grand father of the deceased child Savitri, who died on the spot as a result of the said accident, filed the present claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- . 3. The Defendant-Respondents contested the claim and denied their liability. 4. The learned Member of the Tribunal on evidence found that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the truck driver which resulted in the death of the child. He also found that in case he were to allow the claim, a sum of Rs.2,000/- would be the reasonable compensation considering all the facts and circumstance of the case. However, he negatived the claim mainly on the ground that the maternal grand father was not entitled to file the present claim petition as he is not covered by the provisions of Section 1(a) of the Fatal Accidents Act, according to which every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased. He, therefore, found that as the claim was not filed by the mother of the child Shantibai and as the petition does not disclose that the claimant had filed the same for the benefit of the mother of the child, the Appellant-claimant was not entitled to file this petition and thus dismissed the claim on that ground. 5. It is no doubt true that in the petition itself the claimant Appellant has nowhere stated that he was authorised by his daughter Shantibai to file the present claim petition for her benefit. But it is in the evidence of the mother Shantibai that she had authorised her father to file the claim on her behalf. The technical defect in the present case, therefore, is no doubt there in, as-much as even after amending the claim petition the Appellant did not specifically cover this fact in the petition. But, in my opinion, the learned Member of the Tribunal should not have been too technical on this point as the tenor of the petition as also the evidence adduced by the claimant clearly indicates that it was for the benefit of the mother who has deposed that she has been living with her father as the where abouts of her husband are not known. Admittedly the mother is a person who is a beneficiary to get the compensation on account of the accidental death of her daughter who was just aged about five years. 6. It appears that the learned Member of the Tribunal by relying on the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act relating to the right of inheritance of the persons as mentioned in Schedule II of the said Act felt that the Appellant-claimant being maternal grand father of the deceased child Savitri could not be included in the term 'parent' as mentioned in Section 1(a) of the Fatal Accidents Act. The learned Member, therefore, felt that as the mother of the deceased, who is alive, did not file the claim petition, her father, i.e., the grand father of the deceased child Savitri could not file the present claim petition for the benefit of the child's mother as he is not included in the term 'parent'. 7. However, Section 4 of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 is as follows: 4. 7. However, Section 4 of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 is as follows: 4. Interpretation-clause.--The following words and expressions are intended to have the meaning hereby assigned to them respectively, so far as such meanings are not excluded by the context or by the nature of the subject-matter; that is to say the word 'parent' shall apply to bodies politic and corporate; and the word 'parent' shall include father and mother and grandfather and grandmother; and the word 'child' shall include son and daughter and grandson and grand daughter and step son and step daughter. A bare reading of this section indicates that the interpretation of the word 'parent' is an inclusive one which includes father and mother and grand father and grand mother and the word 'child' also includes son and daughter and grand son and grand daughter and step son and step daughter. This interpretation nowhere defines as paternal grand father, paternal grand mother or maternal grand father or maternal grand mother. Therefore, this being an inclusive interpretation, I am of the opinion that the word 'grand father' includes 'maternal grand father' as also a 'paternal grand father'. Even the dictionary meaning of the word 'grand father' indicates that it includes both 'paternal grand father' as well as 'maternal grand father'. Therefore, in my opinion, the word 'grand father' or 'grand mother' cannot be restricted to mean only 'paternal grand father' or 'paternal grand mother' because the said Act nowhere states that the provisions thereof are to be construed in accordance with personal law. The word 'include' is generally used in the interpretation clause in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of a statute and when it is so used those words must be construed as comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their nature and import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. The use of the word 'include' does not make the definition exhaustive but the definition is to be understood as extensive. The word 'grand father' has to be construed and understood in the common parlance of the word whether it be from the mother's side or from the father's side. 8. The use of the word 'include' does not make the definition exhaustive but the definition is to be understood as extensive. The word 'grand father' has to be construed and understood in the common parlance of the word whether it be from the mother's side or from the father's side. 8. The interpretation of the word 'child' as mentioned in Section 4 of the said Act further indicates that the inclusion of step son and step daughter in the definition of 'child' does not show that the expression 'child' was meant to include only legitimate offspring and exclude illegitimate offspring. If the expression 'child' is defined to include a child not born of the loins of the deceased there is reason to interpret the expression so as to exclude a child born of the loins of the deceased. Therefore, there can be no justification whatever, for introducing the qualifying word 'legitimate' to pre-fix the word 'child' in Section 1(a) of the Fatal Accidents Act. Similarly it was also not necessary to prefix the word 'paternal' or 'maternal' before 'grand father' or 'grand mother' in the said Act. I am therefore, of opinion that the learned Member was not right in rejecting the claim merely on the ground that the claim petition was filed by the maternal grand father and not by the mother herself though it is apparent that he filed the same in a representative capacity for the benefit of his daughter namely the mother of the deceased child. Therefore, I find that the claim petition was filed by a proper person for the benefit of the child's mother as contemplated by Section 1(a) of the said Act. 9. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the age of the child as also the other factors relevant for determining the same, in my opinion, a sum of Rs.2,500/- (two thousand five hundred) would be reasonable, just and proper compensation. 10. In the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The award given by the learned member is set aside. It is ordered that the Respondents shall pay Rs.2,500/- (two thousand five hundred) as compensation to the Respondent-claimant for the benefit of the child's mother. They also pay costs and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the amount is paid. It is ordered that the Respondents shall pay Rs.2,500/- (two thousand five hundred) as compensation to the Respondent-claimant for the benefit of the child's mother. They also pay costs and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the amount is paid. Counsel's fee Rs.100/- if certified. Appeal allowed