JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.5.1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer in Motor Accident Claim No.33/78. 2. On 21.4.1978, at about 4.30 a.m. an accident took place to a truck bearing No.RSR 1422 as it collided against another truck No. RJZ 3455. The truck No.RJZ 3455 was being driven rashly and negligently and it collided with truck, No.RSR 1422 which accident resulted in death of one Possa son of Bhairoo and the deceased was 20 years old and was working as agriculture labourer. The fact that the truck No.3455 was being driven without having duly licence was not alleged or pleaded by the Insurance Company (respondent No.3). The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of truck No.3455. This finding given by the learned trial Judge has not been assailed by the Assurance Company-respondent No.3 by way of appeal. Therefore, the liability for rash and negligent driving has fastened on the driver of the vehicle which was insured by the respondent No.3 and this finding has now become final. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law apparent on the face of record in considering Rs.1000/- per year as the earning of the deceased-Poosa, whereas, according to the minimum wages, the earning come to Rs. 7200/- per year. No appropriate or adequate reasons in this respect have been given by the learned Tribunal as to why only a sum of Rs. 1000/- per year was likely to be paid by the deceased to Smt. Raji, the mother of the deceased. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as II (1994) ACC 426 (Haji Zainullah Khan (Dead) by LRs. v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad) , wherein, the Supreme Court, after granting Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, held for the first time that the driver was rash and negligent in driving and awarded compensation for the death of 20 years old student studying in Ist Year B.Sc. The Supreme Court has observed that great grand father of the deceased was alive on date of the accident and as such there was longevity in the family and has observed that a sum of Rs. The Supreme Court has observed that great grand father of the deceased was alive on date of the accident and as such there was longevity in the family and has observed that a sum of Rs. 1,46,900/- claimed as compensation in that case was very much on the lower side considering the longevity in the family of the deceased. 4. In my opinion, the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court because the finding of rash and negligent driving by the driver is not in dispute. The fact that Assurance Company is liable is also not in dispute and the quantum as awarded by the learned Tribunal is obviously negligible and is liable to be increased. 5. Following the decision of the Supreme Court, I am of the view that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation would be sufficient to meet the requirement of the family of the deceased for the benefit of which had he been allowed to live. The award made by the learned Tribunal is, therefore, modified and the claim of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award till the date of payment is directed to be made. In the result, the appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.Appeal Allowed. *******