JUDGMENT T.S. Doabia, J. 1. This is claimant's appeal. His son Manoj Kumar aged 15 years was involved in an accident with a jeep bearing No. MPD 2704. This accident proved to be fatal. The deceased succumbed to his injuries. In the petition filed seeking compensation, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion: (i) That jeep No. MPD 2704 was responsible for this accident. (ii) That, this jeep belonged to Anup Kumar, (iii) That, the driver was Kamal Singh. (iv) That, it was concluded that the death was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver Kamal Singh. (v) While determining the quantum of compensation this was fixed at Rs. 22,500/-. 2. The claimant has sought enhancement of this compensation. According to him, at least Rs. 75,000/- should be awarded in this case. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has challenged the findings with regard to ownership as also the cause of the accident. It may, however, be noticed that. both Anup Kumar and Kamal Singh preferred separate appeals. These are Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 194 and 182 of 1992, respectively. On account of the failure to deposit the amount of compensation, the appeals were dismissed by this Court on 16.2.1993. This Court came to the conclusion that the requirement to deposit the amount stipulated in Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is mandatory. For this, reliance was placed on the decision given by the Full Bench of this Court in Gaya Prasad and Ors. v. Suresh Kumar and Ors. . At the time of the disposal of the appeals, it was observed that the objectors would bear liberty to make submissions with regard to the present appeal also. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue of ownership is incorrect. I do not find any merit in this contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents. It may be seen that the Tribunal took note of Ex. P/9. This is a document which shows that the jeep in question was given on supurdgi to Anup Kumar. As such, the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to ownership cannot be taken exception to. 5. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, there is merit in the contention of the Counsel for the claimant. P/9. This is a document which shows that the jeep in question was given on supurdgi to Anup Kumar. As such, the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to ownership cannot be taken exception to. 5. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, there is merit in the contention of the Counsel for the claimant. There is no uniform rule for assessing the value of human life. It is not. possible to arrive at the quantum of damages by any process -- mathematical or scientific calculations. The amount recoverable depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the child, the status of the family and the sex, are some of the factors which can be taken note of. In Kanhaiyalal and Anr. v. Dr. Anil Kumar and Anr. 1989 ACJ 713 this Court fixed the compensation at Rs. 30,000/- when a boy of 12 years met with a fatal accident. Again this Court in Prem Lal Shrivas and Anr. v. Manager, Perfect Pottery and Ors. fixed the quantum of compensation at a total amount of Rs. 35,000/-. The age of the boy who was involved in the accident was 9 years. In still a recent decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Jaimal Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1992 ACJ 447 the parents were awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. The deceased was 14 years of age and was a student of 8th class. Thus, taking note of the judicial precedents referred to above, it would be just and proper to fix the quantum of compensation in this case at Rs. 35,000/-. Similar view has been taken by me in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 184/92 decided on 2nd of December 1994 6. This appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. The claimants would have entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum.