JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the Award dated 15.7.1993 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 77,000/- as compensation to the claimants on account of the death of their son deceased Raju aged about 31/2 years. Rs. 15,000/- were already paid to them on account of 'no fault liability' and, therefore, the learned Judge of the Tribunal ordered for the payment of Rs. 62,000/- after making deduction of Rs. 15,000/-. 2. Ramavatar and Smt. Sushila-the parents of deceased Raju filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu for the award of Rs. 41,66,000/- as compensation. The case of the claimants, as set-out in the claim petition, is that on 29.3.1991, at about 2.30 p.m., at the RSRTC Bus Stand, Churu, the Bus No. 8678, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver Ram Swaroop hit Raju and Ram Chandra, who were sitting on a bench at the Bus Stand, Churu. The Bus, also, hit the bench and a wooden-bed. The Bus, also, hit a she-ass of Salim. Ram Chandra received grievous injuries while Raju and the she-ass died in the accident. The claimants who are the parents of deceased Raju, claimed a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- on account of loss of future dependency as according to the claimants Raju was an intelligent boy and if he would have survived, he would have earned and given so much of amount to the claimants. Rs. 7,00,000/- were claimed on account of physical pain and mental agony suffered by the father and Rs. 5,00,000/- for the mental agony and physical pain to the mother. Rs. 50,000/-were claimed by the younger brother on these counts. Rs. 3,00,000/- were claimed on account of loss of love and affection by the father while the brother has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection while Rs. 50,000/- were claimed by the mother on the ground that she could not give birth the another child. Rs. 16,000/- were claimed on account of the treatment, cremation etc. of Raju. 3. 2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection while Rs. 50,000/- were claimed by the mother on the ground that she could not give birth the another child. Rs. 16,000/- were claimed on account of the treatment, cremation etc. of Raju. 3. The claimants, in support of their case, examined five witnesses, viz., AW 1 Ramavtar, AW 2 Smt. Sushila, AW 3 Hira Lal, AW 4 Ram Chandra & AW 5 Gani Khan while the non-claimants, in their defence, examined NAW 1 Radha Kishan, NAW 2 Beni Prasad, NAW 3 Om Prakash & NAW 4 Ram Swaroop.The first question which requires consideration is : who was responsible for the accident and whether the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver Ram Swaroop? It is not in dispute that Raju met with an accident with Bus No. RRG 8678 and received injuries, on account of which he died. The case of the non-claimants, in defence, is that the Bus was parked on a slop and the obstruction was put before the front wheels. When those obstructions were removed and the driver sat on the driving-seat, in the meanwhile a passenger's box fell on the gear box and the Bus came in the neutral gear and dashed against the foot-path and hit Raj and others.AW 2 Smt. Sushila - the mother of deceased Raju - has stated that she was sitting near the shop at the distance and was waiting for the Bus. Raju along with his uncle (Tauji) was sitting on the bench. The Bus, on account of the negligence of the driver, first hit the cart and then hit the bench on which Raju and his uncle were sitting. Raju died on account of this accident and his uncle received injuries. The statements of AW 3 Heera Lal and AW 4 Ram Chandra, who are, also, the eye-witnesses to the accident, are to the same effect. From the evidence of these witnesses it has been established that it was only on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Bus that the accident took place, in which Raju died. From the evidence of these witnesses it has been established that it was only on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Bus that the accident took place, in which Raju died. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has considered the evidence on this aspect in the right perspective and the finding arrived-at by the learned Judge of the Tribunal cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary, unjust or improper. The appreciation of the evidence has been rightly made by the learned Judge of the Tribunal and the finding arrived-at by him does not require any interference. It has been established from the evidence on record that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver. 4. The next question which requires consideration is : whether the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is adequate or it is excessive ? The learned Judge of the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 77,000/- in all. Rs. 64,800/- have been awarded as the loss of dependency, Rs. 5,000/- each as the loss of love and affection and Rs. 2,200/- as the expenses incurred in the cremation etc. of deceased Raju. The boy (deceased Raju) was 31/2 years of age when he met with the accident and died and, therefore, no amount can be awarded to the parents on account of loss of dependency. The amount that can be awarded to the claimants is only for the loss of love and affection, mental agony and shock suffered by them and on these counts, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- will meet the ends of justice and I award this amount to the claimants as compensation. 5. In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellants, is partly allowed and the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is modified to this extent that instead of Rs. 77,000/-, the claimants shall be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.Appeal partly allowed. *******