ORDER K.L. Issrani, J. 1. The present appeal is under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the Award dated 20-12-1982, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur, in Claim Case No. 15/81. 2. On 1-1-1981, at about 12.00 noon, the deceased Dinesh Halba, a boy aged about 5 years was severely injured in an accident caused by truck No. M.P.R. 3150 when he was playing on the pile of concrete at the side of the road. The truck was driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No. 1. The truck is owned by the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the said truck. Consequent to the injuries received by the boy Dinesh, he died in the Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, on the next day. 3. The defence of the respondents was that Dinesh met with death on account of his own negligence. 4. The Claims Tribunal held that the driver was rash and negligent in driving the truck but awarded only Rs. 4000/- as compensation + Rs. 1000/- towards funeral expenses and - also for mental pain and agony - total = Rs. 5000/-. No interest was awarded. 5. Aggrieved by the said Award of the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the present appeal on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is too low and that interest should also be awarded. The claim before the Claims Tribunal was for Rs. 50,000/- out of which only Rs. 5,000/- was awarded to the claimants. The present appeal is for the balance amount with interest. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, we are of the opinion that the amount awarded in this case is not just and proper and deserves to be enhanced. In Basanta Kumar Sahu v. Shyamsunder Agarwalla, 1977 ACJ 359 (Orissa), in a similar case of a boy of 5 years, who was riding on his tri-cycle, run over by a truck on the road, the claimants-parents were awarded Rs. 8000/- as compensation. But in S. Velu Filled v. Kochappi Sreenivasan, 1985 ACJ 627 (Kerala), in a similar case of a girl of 5 years, the amount of Rs. 5000/- awarded as compensation was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- in appeal. 8000/- as compensation. But in S. Velu Filled v. Kochappi Sreenivasan, 1985 ACJ 627 (Kerala), in a similar case of a girl of 5 years, the amount of Rs. 5000/- awarded as compensation was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- in appeal. It was held in this case that it is not necessary to prove that the parents have been deprived of a current source of income but it would be quite sufficient to sustain the claim if it is established that a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage has been lost. Yet in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sangey Tsering, 1989 ACJ 304 (Gauhati), in a case of a deceased girl aged 7 years, student of Class I, the claimant father was awarded Rs. 50,000/- by the Claims Tribunal but in appeal, the amount was reduced to Rs. 17,000/-. While assessing compensation in the case of death of a child it was held that while dealing with the compensation payable for the death of a boy or girl, too young in age, the desire of the court to compensate the pecuniary loss would not be the appropriate basis to fix the compensation inasmuch as in case of a child it would not be an earning (now prospectively earning) member and as such pecuniarily not an asset to the family. The Court has, therefore, to make a departure from the traditional mode of computing compensation in such cases. The compensation has to be paid mostly to take care of the mental shock the parents had received on the death of their son or daughter. It is, no doubt difficult to measure the mental shock in terms of money but the Court has nonetheless to perform this difficult task as satisfactorily as the same can be done. There is no doubt that in doing so, some amount of guess shall have to be taken recourse to but there seems to be no way out. Indeed, some amount of guess-work is involved in almost all computations of compensation under the Act. It was further held that in doing so, the age of the child and the number of children, more particularly of the sex to which the deceased belonged, the couple had, would be the guiding factor. Indeed, some amount of guess-work is involved in almost all computations of compensation under the Act. It was further held that in doing so, the age of the child and the number of children, more particularly of the sex to which the deceased belonged, the couple had, would be the guiding factor. The learned Judge of the Gauhati High Court has regarded the age of the child as a relevant factor in this regard, because the attachment of the parents towards the child would definitely depend upon the period the child has been in the family. The number of children the couple has, has also a bearing inasmuch as the shock would be terrible if the deceased child be the only issue. This shock would definitely be softened if the couple has some other children, more particularly of the same sex. Another factor to be borne in mind in this connection would be whether the couple has possibility of begetting another child. If the couple has passed the reproductive age, the loss would be felt more. The compensation awardable to the claimant in that case was fixed at a sum of Rs. 17,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 7. In the present case, no doubt, the family of the deceased is a labourer family, but the deceased was the only issue of the claimant mother Lachchandei, who herself has deposed in paragraph 3 of her statement as P.W.I that she has no other issue except Dinesh. In paragraph 4, she has stated that she is an Adivasi lady and, therefore, the Government bears the expenses on education of their children upto the age of 20 years. Her expectation was that after education he (the child) would have earned at least Rs. 1000/- per month and out of it he would have spent at least Rs. 300/- on her during all her life time. She is a widow and there is no expectation of getting another issue out of the wedlock. We, therefore, consider it a fit case in which at least an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation should be awarded. So far as payment of interest is concerned, now the trend is not to grant interest at less than 12% per annum from the date of the application. We, therefore, consider it a fit case in which at least an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation should be awarded. So far as payment of interest is concerned, now the trend is not to grant interest at less than 12% per annum from the date of the application. This Court in State of M.P. v. Ashadevi, 1988 MPLJ 346 , relying on different authorities, including the decision of the Apex Court in Jagbir Singh v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways, AIR 1987 SC 70 , has held that minimum interest in compensation cases nowadays has to be awarded at rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application. The interest awarded in that case at the rate of 9% per annum by the Claims Tribunal was raised to 12% per annum by this Court. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the just compensation in this case will be Rs. 10,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application. We, therefore, award the same. The impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is accordingly modified. 9. With this modification, the appeal is partly allowed. However, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.