JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 15-12-1981 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the claimants-respondents No. 1 and 2 on account of the death of deceased Rakesh aged 6 years 2. In this case, the appellant has not challenged the accident nor the death of Rakesh on 10-7-78 at about 6.45 P.M. at Chopasani Road, Jodhpur. It was, however, contended that the driver was not negligent and the amount of compensation that has been awarded is excessive. 3. I have heard Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A.M. Singhvi, the learned Counsel for the respondents. 4. Having heard both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the record of the case, I find that there is no force in both these contentions raised by Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, the learned Counsel for the appellant. In this case, the accident was caused by truck No. RJQ 1003 near Akhaliya Choraya. It is not disputed that this truck was driven by Driver Chutra. It has come in evidence that some children were playing on the heap of sand and that was observed by the driver before about 25 pawandas meaning thereby that he observed the children playing on the heap of sand from a distance of about 140 feet. It was, therefore, the duty of the driver to have driven the truck very cautiously when he was passing by the side of the children. The driver has stated that he does not know as to when and how the accident took place. He stopped the truck after about 75 pawandas i.e. after about 400 feet on the cries raised by the passers by, which means that he was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently and he was not aware of the fact that by driving his vehicle rashly and negligently, a child has been crushed. He stopped the truck after about 75 pawandas i.e. after about 400 feet on the cries raised by the passers by, which means that he was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently and he was not aware of the fact that by driving his vehicle rashly and negligently, a child has been crushed. In such accidental cases, where the victim is a child aged below 7 years, it has been observed by this Court in a number of cases that the child cannot be held guilty of contributory negligence because he has not attained sufficient age giving him such maturity which may enable him to protract his person from any danger and, therefore, the driver who drives the truck in a manner which results in crushing a child, he must be held guilty of driving the truck rashly and negligently. I, therefore, entirely agree with the learned trial court that the driver was rash and negligent in driving the truck and it was because of his negligence that the accident has taken place. 5. So far as compensation is concerned, the learned lower court has relied on Amal Ramchandra Gandhi v. Ayash Bhai Kasim Bhai Diwan, 1979 ACJ 460 . , Kasturilal v. Prabhakar, 1970 ACJ 1 . , Construction India v. Mahindra Pal Singh, 1975 ACJ 177. and Mohd. Muzzaffar v. Mohd. Sultan Sheikh, 1980 ACJ 516 . wherein on account of the death of children aged between 6 to 13 years, compensation worth Rs. 19,500/- to Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded. Keeping in view all these authorities, the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000/- along with interest does not appear to be excessive. Rather, it is most reasonable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. In the result, I find no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed. The costs of this appeal shall be easy.Appeal dismissed. *******