JUDGMENT 1. -This appeal by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation has been directed against the award dated 23.4.1991 passed by the judge. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, by which the learned judge of the tribunal awarded a sum of 25,000/- as compensation and dismissed thee remaining claim of the claimant -appellants. 2. Claimants Inder Mal and four others filed a Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 10,18,500/-. The case of the claimants, as set-out in the claim petition, is that deceased Manoj was the son of claimant-appellants No. 1 & 2. At the time of his death in the accident, he was aged about six years and was a student of Class 1. On the fateful day he had gone to witness Gaurchand Prabha fair in village Mehandwas. At about 8.45 on 24.9.1986 he was hit by a Jeep No. RBL 4205 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Davendra Kumar Patel. The accident took place in the crowded place in the fair itself. Deceased Manoj sustained serious injuries in this accident and died at the spot. The Claimants claimed Rs. 9,36,000/- on account of loss of dependency, Rs. 60,000/- on account of untimely death of Manoj, Rs. 20,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and Rs. 2,500/- as the expenses met-out in the funeral etc. of deceased Manoj and as such the claimants, in all, claimed Rs. 1,10,500/-. 3. The claim petition was contested by the owner cum driver as well as the insurance company. The claimants, in support of their case, examined AW 1 Inder Mal - the father of the deceased - and three other witnesses. The respondents, in defence, examined NAW 1 Davendra Kumar Patel - the owner and the driver of the jeep. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, from the evidence produced by the respective parties, came to the conclusion that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its owner cum driver Davendra Kumar Patel and awarded the compensation as stated above. 4. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, from the evidence produced by the respective parties, came to the conclusion that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its owner cum driver Davendra Kumar Patel and awarded the compensation as stated above. 4. No appeal has been filed either by the owner cum driver or by the insurance company challenging the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal and, therefore, the findings arrived-at by the learned Judge of the Tribunal relating to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by Davendra Kumar resulting in the accident and the death of Manoj, is not necessary to be gone-into. 5. I have gone through the evidence produced by the claimants as well as the respondents and after perusal of the evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge of the Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity in arriving at the finding regarding the responsibility of Davendra Kumar Patel in causing the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep which resulted in the death of Manoj. The appreciation of the evidence made by the learned Judge of the Tribunal cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary, unjust or improper. Cogent and convincing reasons have been given by the learned Judge of the Tribunal in holding respondent Davendra Kumar Patel liable for the accident. 6. The evidence produced by the parties clearly show that it was only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its owner cum driver Davendra Kumar in the crowded place of the fair which resulted in the accident causing the death of Manoj. 7. The next question which requires consideration is regarding the adequacy of the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and to see whether the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is adequate or it is on the lower side ? Deceased Manoj, who was a boy of six years at the time of his death, was an intelligent student. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded as compensation by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, is much on the lower side and it requires enhancement. Deceased Manoj, who was a boy of six years at the time of his death, was an intelligent student. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded as compensation by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, is much on the lower side and it requires enhancement. I am, therefore, of the view that a consolidated amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand only) as the amount of compensation, will meet the ends of justice. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimant-appellants, is partly allowed. The amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. The amount of Rs. 15,000/- already paid to the claimants as 'no fault liability' and the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- paid to them in pursuance to the award, may be adjusted towards this enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The claimants will, also, be entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the date of presentation of the claim petition.Misc. Appeal allowed. *******