JUDGMENT R.K. Verma, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant Dhgiyana against the award dated 30.8.82 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Nimar, Mandleshwar in Claim Case No. 86/81 whereby the claim of the applicant for compensation in respect of the death of his son Pannelal alias Limda has been dismissed. 2. The facts giving rise to his appeal, briefly stated, are as follows: On 6.7.82, while the deceased Pannalal alias Limda aged 11 years was returning along with other labourers engaged in construction of the road near village Dodwan, a passenger but belonging of M.P.S.R.T. Corporation coming from the side of Burhanpur and going towards Ujjain hit the deceased from behind and ran away without stopping. As a result of the accident the decreased was seriously injured and was taken to hospital at Khandwa where he succumbed to injuries. The eye-witness Bhuriya (AW-1) lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P/1) at Bhikangaon Police Station informing that the M.P.S.R.T. Corporation's bus bearing registration No. MPW-9203 had caused the accident injuring the deceased. It is also stated in the First Information Report that immediately after the accident effort was made to stop the but at Dhangaonby conveying message on telephone to Dhungaon Police Station and the response from Dhangaon Police Station was received informing that the offending bus was stopped and that its driver Ishaq Mohammad had been taken into custody and the bus had been detained at that Police Station. 3. In the claim petition, however, the registration number of the offending bus was mentioned as MPU-9203 instead of MPW-9203 as mentioned in the First Information Report The respondents in their written-statement denied that the respondent-corporation was the owner of the bus No. MPU-9203. 4. After-trial, the learned Tribunal found that the accident, resulting in injuries, to which the deceased succumbed, was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending passenger-bus and assessed a compensation of Rs. 7,000/- in respect of the death of the deceased but held that the identity of the bus was not established and as such, the respondents were not liable. 5. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant has by amendment of the claim petition corrected the registration number of the offending bus as MPW-9203 in place of MPU-9203. 7,000/- in respect of the death of the deceased but held that the identity of the bus was not established and as such, the respondents were not liable. 5. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant has by amendment of the claim petition corrected the registration number of the offending bus as MPW-9203 in place of MPU-9203. The respondents have not made any consequential amendment to deny the averment that the bus MPW-9203 belonged to the respondent Corporation. The two eyewitnesses Bhuriya (AW-1) and Sheru (AW-2) have stated in their evidence that the offending bus which hit the deceased was MPSRT corporation's bus. This statement does not appear to have been questioned in the Cross-examination of these two witnesses. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have also not seriously contended that the offending bus did not belong to the Corporation. In the circumstances, it must be held that the offending bus belonged to the respondent-Corporation and that the corporation was vicariously liable for the fault committed by its driver while driving the bus. The finding of the learned Tribunal on the issue Of identity and ownership of the of fending bus cannot be sustained in view of the evidence and the amendment made in the claim petition correcting the registration number of the bus in question. Accordingly that finding is set aside and it is held that the bus involved in the accident was the bus belonging to the M.P.S.R.T. Corporation. 6. As regards the quantum of compensation, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in comparable cases, where there has been loss of life of a child as a result of the accident, the amount of compensation awarded has been more than Rs. 25,000/-. Learned Counsel cited a decision of this court in Kanhaiyalal and Anr. v. Dr Anilkumar and Anr. (1989) ACJ 713 : (1990) II ACC 203. wherein the compensation of Rs. 30.000/- was awarded in respect of death of a child aged 12 years. In the ins tan tease, the deceased's age was 11 years and the learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- should be awarded as just and fair compensation. Compensation of Rs. wherein the compensation of Rs. 30.000/- was awarded in respect of death of a child aged 12 years. In the ins tan tease, the deceased's age was 11 years and the learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- should be awarded as just and fair compensation. Compensation of Rs. 25,000/- which is statutorily provided in respect of the death by motor accident even on 'no-fault liability' principle, also implies that the loss of human life should not be assessed below Rs. 25,000/-, as has been the view of this Court 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I consider it just and fair to award Rs. 25,000/- as compensation instead of Rs. 7,000/- assessed by the learned Tribunal 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed inasmuch as the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to receive from the respondent-Corporation a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation with interest 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition i.e. from 6.11.1981 till realisation. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.