D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE matter for decision is whether the award of compensation of Rs. 60,000/- for the loss of life of a child aged four years by the 2nd M. A. C. T. , Berhampur is sustainable in the eye of law and if so, whether the amount is excessive. ( 2 ) ONE Banita Kumari Sahu, daughter of the claimants died in a motor accident on 7-6-93 around 9. 30 a. m. on the P. W. D. road near village Jamagarada under the Buguda Police Station in the district of Ganjam. It is claimed that the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. ORG 1136 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. ( 3 ) THE appellant Insurance Company a well as the owner of the vehicle both contested the case. While the owner denied the rash and negligent driving by the driver, the Insurance Company took the plea of absence of valid insurance as well as absence of valid driving licence of the driver. The Tribunal framed the following issues :-1. Whether the vehicle bearing registration No. ORG 1136 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner causing death of Banita Kumari Sahu?2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so, what should the quantum thereof?3. Whether the claim is entertainable as against all or any of the respondents?4. To what relief the claimants are entitled to? ( 4 ) MR. A. K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Insurance Company with reference to the provisions of Sections 140, 141 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 strenuously submits that the award of compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in the case of death of a child is against the principle laid down by the apex Court as well as other High Courts including that of ours. The learned Counsel further contends with reference to the decisions cited by him in his memo that the compensation amount has never gone beyond an amount of Rs. 24,000/- in case of death of a child aged fourteen years. He refers to the decision reported in 1993 ACJ 174, Anjamuri Zeorge v. Cadala Rama Nageswara Rao. ( 5 ) MR. The learned Counsel further contends with reference to the decisions cited by him in his memo that the compensation amount has never gone beyond an amount of Rs. 24,000/- in case of death of a child aged fourteen years. He refers to the decision reported in 1993 ACJ 174, Anjamuri Zeorge v. Cadala Rama Nageswara Rao. ( 5 ) MR. R. N. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the claimant-respondents also referred to various decisions including two decisions of this Court reported in 1997 (1) OLR 390, Ananda Chandra Behera v. Chairman, Orissa State Electricity Board and 1991 (1) ACJ 347, Raghunath Kar v. Shasikala Devi. It is strenuously urged that keeping in view the principles for awarding damages/compensation even in the case of electrocution and other cases of accidents causing loss of human life, the Court has taken a view of awarding just compensation which even sometimes has been more than the amount awarded in the present case. Mr. Mohanty also relies on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1976 ACJ 239 : (AIR 1976 Orissa 175); National Insurance Co. v. Magikhia Das and submits that since the case has been contested by the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company shall be precluded from challenging quantum of award. ( 6 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, gone through the impugned order and the materials on record. Though Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company draws my attention to the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 draling with the compensation under no fault liability and compares the relative implications of the provisions of that section with Sections 141 and 166 of the said Act, yet, I do not feel it necessary to deal with that point since admittedly no claim was made initially under no fault liability for compensation. There is no dispute with regard to the finding of facts relating to the accident and the resultant death and of course with regard to the age of the deceased. The argument and counter-argument only touches the point in regard to the quantum of compensation awarded. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for loss of life and Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and agony of the parents. While it is the contention of Mr. The argument and counter-argument only touches the point in regard to the quantum of compensation awarded. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for loss of life and Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and agony of the parents. While it is the contention of Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the amount is grossly excessive on the face of so many judicial pronouncements limiting the compensation for the death of a child up to the age of six years in between the amount of Rupees 15,000/- to Rs. 24,000/-, it is the contention of Mr. A. K. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the claimants that the award is just and reasonable. ( 7 ) I have no quarrel over the ratios in the decisions referred by the Counsel for the Insurance Company as per his memo of citations including those of our own High Court. In all these decisions the Courts have merely adopted the principles almost like prescribing a yardstick for the purpose of awarding compensation in case of death of infants. But it is also well settled that under the common law relating to damages/compensation, no inflexible rule or principle exists for awarding any particular amount as compensation in each individual case of death. While calculating compensation under the common law, some of the most essential factors relating to the life and property of the individual and the circumstance under which one lives rather is taken into account. It is apparent that keeping in view the present days' complexities in the social life, the miserable economic condition of the poorest of the poor and at the same time the affluency of the elite and the sophisticated section of the populace and above all the escalating cost of living in the modern days, the parliament thought it wise to enhance the amount of compensation under no fault liability from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- by way of amendment. Though the present claimants cannot take the advantage of the amendment enhancing the compensation, since the amendment came after the accident, yet if the principles behind such enhancement for compensation has weighed in the mind of the Tribunal, it cannot be said that it committed any illegality or error by fixing the amount of Rs. 50,000/- and this is apparent from the award in the present case. However Mr. 50,000/- and this is apparent from the award in the present case. However Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the claimants, submits that if award of this Court can be satisfied by the Insurance Company without any delay and without driving the claimants to realise the amount by certificate proceeding etc. , then to avoid this hardship, to claimants would not mind foregoing a minimal part of the awarded amount which may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, however, assures that there shall be no delay from the side of the Insurance Company to satisfy any amount of compensation fixed by this Court. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties as above and keeping in view the principle laid down for awarding compensation in such cases under the common law, I feel it appropriate and just to modify the award to Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees forty-five thousand) instead of Rs. 60,000/ -. The Insurance Company shall however be liable to pay a lump sum of Rs. 10,000/- as interest. This Court is informed that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been deposited with this Court by the Insurance Company. If that be so, respondents 1 and 2 may be allowed to withdraw the said amount. The rest amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within six weeks from today. In case the balance amount is not deposited within the time stipulated, interest at the rate of 12 per cent shall be charged on the whole amount of Rs. 45,000/ -. The misc. appeal is accordingly disposed of. The lower Court records be sent back forthwith. Order accordingly.