JUDGMENT This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act preferred by appellant Ramesh Chandra for enhancement of compensation awarded on the death of his six years' old daughter named Poonam who unfortunately met with an accident just in front of her house by M.P.S.R.T.C. bus No. M.B.N. 1175 driven by Shyamsingh, the respondent No.2. Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 26,000/- i.e. Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards the expenses incurred on her treatment The Claims Tribunal did not give any amount towards the funeral expenses. Shri N.D. Singhal, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for enhancement and contended that the damages awarded are too meagre. He contended that the Claims Tribunal committed illegality in not making the payment to Rs. 1,000/- towards funeral expenses. He submitted that the provisions of M.V.A., 1988 have now made enhancement even in respect of interim award on the ground of no fault liability. He contended that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in awarding the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that Poonam (deceased) was the only daughter of the appellant. She was six years of age at the time of accident. He relied on 1987 MPWN (II) SN 188 (Saraswati Bai v. Damodar Prasad) and a recent decision (un-reported) of this Court given in the case of Bhaiyalal v. Rajesh Kumar and others) in Misc. Appeal No. 85/93 decided on 7.7.1995. In Bhaiyalal's case (supra) the deceased was a male child of about 4 years, and this Court considering the facts and circumstances and the nature of accident held that :- "The Tribunal had lost sight of this fact that Mukesh was only son of the appellants. They had suffered a lot of mental agony and a huge expenditure made for the medical treatment of their son. They had no other issues. In these circumstances and also in view of the amendment made in the Motor Vehicles Act which is fully applicable in this case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and must be enhanced." In Bhaiyalal's case this Court had considered the decisions given in Arun Kumar Dubey & another v. Ku. Renu Gupta & others (un-reported) in Misc. Renu Gupta & others (un-reported) in Misc. A. No. 79/89, decided on 16th March, 1995, New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Lalaram and others (un-reported) in M.A. No. 18/94 decided on 15th March, 1995, Kamta Prasad v. Jaggan & Co. 1995 (II) TAC 145 (Allahabad), Kanhaiyalal v. Dr. Anil Kumar (1989 ACJ 713), Balwant Singh v. Jyoti Prasad 1986 ACJ 1123 of P & H High Court New India Assurance Co. v. Nafis Begum ( 1991 JLJ 490 ) and came to the conclusion that the compensation must be enhanced. Shri J.D. Suryavanshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents placed reliance on a decision given in New India Assurance Co. v. Lalaram and others in Misc. A. No. 18/94. This case has been dealt with in Misc. Appeal No. 85/93 (Bhaiyalal & another v. Rajesh Kumar and others). Misc. Appeal No. 18/94 was governed by 1988 Act. Shri Suryavanshi further placed reliance on a decision given in Misc. Appeal No. 200/86 (un-reported) (Jairam v. Jagdish Chandra & two others). This is also a case in which the incident had occurred on 11.9.1981 and the award was passed by the Claims Tribunal on 2.5.1986 and the appeal was preferred much before year 1988. The above case is thus distinguishable. In view of what has been stated above and especially the fact that deceased was only child of 6 years age at the time of accident, claimant suffered lot of mental agony, it is just and proper to enhance claim from 25,000/- to 50,000/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs. It is directed that the amount of compensation awarded be enhanced from 25,000/- to 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application.