JUDGMENT A.G. Qureshi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award given by Shri S.P. Shrivastava, Second Member, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim case No. 34 of 81 on 22.7.1982. 2. The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the appellants filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motorr Vehicles act before the lower Tribunal alleging that on 7.11.80 at about 11.30 a.m. the son of the claimants named Manohar was standing in front on the Roadways Booking Office at Sanwer. At that time respondent No. 2 Lokendra-kumar driving the bus CPO-9035 approached the spot driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and so driving dashed the bus against the deceased Manohar from the front side of the vehicle. As a result of the impact Manohar was thrown at a distance of 15 to 20 ft and received injuries on the head, chest and other parts of the body and later on 11.11.80 he succumbed to the injuries in M.Y. Hospital. Manohar, at the time of his death, was 17 years of age, unmarried and was engaged in the business of running a hotel from which he was getting about Rs. 600/- per month. The appellants were dependent on the income of the deceased. Therefore a claim for getting compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was made against all the respondents, the respondent No. 1 being the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident, respondent No. 2 being the driver of the vehicle in the employment of respondent No. land respondent No. 3 being the Insurance Company with which the said vehicle was insured. 3. The non-applicants resisted the claim on the ground that the death of Manohar was not as a result of the rash and negligent driving on the pan of respondent No. 2, instead Manohar himself was responsible for the accident. The entitlement of the claimants to claim compensation was also challenged and the quantum was also disputed. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings the lower court framed five issues to decide the claim petition and it held that the applicants are the legal representatives of the deceased Manohar and that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the non-applicant No. 2 and consequently the applicants were held entitled to get compensation of Rs. 14,000/-. 14,000/-. It is against the inadequancy of the compensation that the claimants have filed this appeal. 5. The counsel for respondent No. 1 has filed a cross-objection challenging the findings of the lower court in respect of the liability of respondent No. 1 on the basis of rash and negligent driving. The learned Counsel for the appellant has on the one hand argued about the inadequancy of the compensation whereas on the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has argued that the finding of the lower court in respect of the rash and negligent driving, on the part of respondent No. 2 is erroneous and as such no compensation could be awarded. 6. On perusing the record and considering the arguments of the learned Counsel, I find that the evidence of Laxman (A.W.2) has been considered by the learned lower court, who has stated that when deceased Manohar was standing on the Kutcha portion of the road the bus being driven rashly and negligently dashed against the deceased and he was thrown to a distance of 15 ft as a result of the impact. Even after the application of kes the bus did not stop on the spot, but stopped at a distance of about 15 ft. Ramlal (A.W.3) also fully corroborated the aforesaid statement of Laxman (A. W.2). The learned Counsel for the respondents could not point out any infirmity in the finding of the lower Tribunal given after placing reliance on the evidence of A. W.2 Laxman and Ramlal (A.W.3). After perusing the statement of both these witnesses, I find, that the finding of the learned lower Tribunal is proper and does not call for interference. 7. Now the only question which remains to be decided is whether the award given by the lower court is on the lower side. The learned Tribunal has considered the judegment of Baliya and Ors. v. M.P.S.R.T.C. Bhopal 1977 ACJ 362 wherein a boy aged seven years has died as a result of the accident and as he came from a family of labourers an amount of Rs. 4000/- was treated as an adequate compensation. In the case of Basant Kumar Sahu v. Shyamsunder Agarwalla 1977 ACJ 359 wherein it was held that an amount of Rs. 4000/- was treated as an adequate compensation. In the case of Basant Kumar Sahu v. Shyamsunder Agarwalla 1977 ACJ 359 wherein it was held that an amount of Rs. 8000/- would be an adequate compensation when the boy died in the accident was not earning at the time of his death. In the case of Syed Patel v. N.H. Doddabasappa 1982 ACJ, 1 the Kernataka High Court in the case of the death of a girl aged 6 years Rs. 6000/- was held to be an adequate compensation. The court also took into consideration the case of Nanooram v. Rajendrapal 1982 (1) MPWN-N.183 where the Tribunal awarded of compensation amounting to Rs. 12,000/- in the case of death of a boy of 18 years who had appeared for the Higher Secondary examination. Other cases of different High Courts have also been considered by the learned Tribunal for awarding Rs. 14,000/- as compensation. 8. The award has been passed in the year 1982. On perusing the different Judgments cited by the learned Tribunal I find that in all the aforesaid Judgments the deceased was not earning anything whereas in the instant case this deceased was earning about Rs. 600/- a month as has been stated by the claimants. The learned Counsel for the appellants has cited various authorities in which more compensation has been awarded in the case of the death of a young boy in view of the facts and circumstances of those cases. In a Division Bench case of our High Court in Radhelal v. Nilkanth 1986 ACJ, 986 the deceased was aged 20 years and was earning Rs. 800/- per month. The claimant was his father aged 57 years. But there being no evidence of the contribution of the deceased to the family an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded. In the instant case also there is no evidence to show the extent of dependency of the claimantson the income of the deceased and the deceased shown to be earning about Rs. 600/- per month therefore, it would be just and proper to enhance the award. Therefore, the compensation of Rs. 14,000/- awarded to the claimant is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- in view of the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case. The rate of interest has been allowed at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. 600/- per month therefore, it would be just and proper to enhance the award. Therefore, the compensation of Rs. 14,000/- awarded to the claimant is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- in view of the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case. The rate of interest has been allowed at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. But in view of the fact that at the time of passing of the award the interest rate being 6 per cent that rate of allowed by the learned tribunal. There being non prayer in the appeal for enhancement of the rate of interest I am not inclined to accede to the request of the learned Counsel for enhancement in the rate of interest only because this appeal remained pending in this court for over eight years. 9. Consequently the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. The award of compensation of Rs. 14,000/- passed in favour of the appellants is enhanced to Rs. 20,000. A modified award be prepared accordingly. The cross-objection filed by the respondent is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.