JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the award dated 28th February 1989 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribuntli, Gwalior. It is not in dispute that on 21.6.1987 in the motor-accident a child by name Soni alias Prafulla Kumar aged between 5 to 6 years died. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 28,000/- with 12 percent interest per annum payable thereon. The learned counsel for the claimants in this appeal, seeks only enhancement of the amount of compensation. The learned counsel contends that by the amendment of section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the amount of interim compensation was increased from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. The interim compensation payable in the case of death has now been increased to Rs. 50,000/- under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The argument advanced is that the above amendment made in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the provisions in the Act of 1988 can he made applicable for granting a sum upto Rs. 50,000/- in the final award on the finding reached that the driver of the concerned motor vehicle was negligent and responsible for the accident. Strong reliance is placed on a Single Bench decision of Allahabad High Court reported in 1995 (II) TAC 145 (AlIaha.) Kamta Prasad v. Jaggan & Co. We cannot agree with the view expressed in the aforesaid Allahabad High Court decision in view of a Full Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in New India Assurance Co. v. Nafis Begum (1991 JU 490). The Full Bench of this Court has taken a view that the law as applicable on the date of accident would apply in the matter of quantum of compensation. The provision introduced by amendment in the Act of 1939 fixing enhanced interim compensation based on 'no fault' liability and the provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 fixing Rs. 50,000/- as interim compensation can, therefore, have no application to a claim case arising out of an accident prior to the above law. The view expressed by Allahabad High Court (supra) that retrospectivity has to be inferred from the provisions cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the claimants then placed reliance on a decision of Rajasthan High Court reported in 1986 ACJ 1121 (Hassa Mal v. Jatti Ram) where adopting multiplier of 20 compensation in the sum of Rs. The view expressed by Allahabad High Court (supra) that retrospectivity has to be inferred from the provisions cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the claimants then placed reliance on a decision of Rajasthan High Court reported in 1986 ACJ 1121 (Hassa Mal v. Jatti Ram) where adopting multiplier of 20 compensation in the sum of Rs. 48,000/- was awarded. Reliance is also placed on an unreported decision noted in 1987 (II) MPWN 188 (Saraswati Bai v. Damodar Prasad) where a child of 7 years was awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as his father was a dumb person which was taken to be an extra-ordinary circumstance. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that conventional figure is 30,000/- which was consistently taken by tribunals in awarding compensation for death of a child between 5 to 12 years. He relics on Kanhaiyalal v. Dr. Anil Kumar (1989 ACJ 713) in which Rs. 30,000/- Was awarded to claimants for the death of a child aged 12 years. Reliance is also placed on Balwant Singh v. Jyoti Prasad (1986- ACJ 1123) of Punjab and Haryana High Court, in which for death of a girl aged 6 years Rs. 30,000/- was awarded as compensation. The other case of Madhya Pradesh High Court relied on is M.P. Electricity Board v. Bhona (II (1993) ACC 121 (DB)) where for death of a child a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded. The trend of the decisions cited before us show that a conventional figure has to be adopted in a case of a death of a child. In the case of child his future prospects and earning capacity are matters of guess. There is also uncertainty about his longevity. We are unable to agree that the provisions fixing higher amount of interim compensation introduced by amendment of 1939 Act and the 1989 Act can be made applicable to the accident which took place in the year 1989. The amount of compensation of Rs. 28;000/- awarded by the Tribunal is adequate, but in order to bring it in line with the decisions cited before us we enhance it by Rs. 2,000/- to make it Rs. 30,000/-. In the result, the appeal partly succeeds. The amount of compensation awarded is enhanced by Rs. The amount of compensation of Rs. 28;000/- awarded by the Tribunal is adequate, but in order to bring it in line with the decisions cited before us we enhance it by Rs. 2,000/- to make it Rs. 30,000/-. In the result, the appeal partly succeeds. The amount of compensation awarded is enhanced by Rs. 2,000/- on which the respondents shall pay interest to the claimants at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.