JUDGMENT M. SRINIVASAN, C.J.-The State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred this appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Shimla. The accident occurred on 31 -3-1988. The deceased was aged about 16 years. She travelled in the Truck along with others. According to the claimant who is the father of the deceased the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident and the respondents are, therefore, liable for compensation. The claim was contested on the ground that the accident occurred not on account of any rash and negligent driving but on account of mechanical defect in the vehicle. It is also contended that the vehicle was being driven unauthorisedly by the Cleaner and not the regular driver and therefore the owner of the vehicle will not be liable. 2. Insofar as rash and negligent driving is concerned, there is ample evidence on record to show that the accident occurred only because of rash and negligent driving. The witnesses examined by the claimants proved that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed and in a rash manner. The Tribunal has discussed the entire evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. We do not find any justification to interfere with the reasoning of the Tribunal in this respect. 3. The second contention that the vehicle was driven by a clearner is not acceptable. It is in evidence that on several occasions the departmental officials used to get the vehicle driven by the cleaner when the driver was not immediately available. It is also in evidence that in this case the Junior Engineer belonging to the same Division was sitting inside the truck. RW-4 Panna Lai was the driver in whose charge was the truck at the time of accident. But he has given evidence that the truck was allowed by the Engineer to be taken by the cleaner and in his absence the cleaner drove the vehicle. The evidence of RW- 4 was accepted by the Tribunal. We do not find any reason to differ from the Tribunal. The owner of the vehicle, namely, the State Government cannot escape liability by saying that the vehicle was unauthorisedly driven by the cleaner. The evidence of RW- 4 was accepted by the Tribunal. We do not find any reason to differ from the Tribunal. The owner of the vehicle, namely, the State Government cannot escape liability by saying that the vehicle was unauthorisedly driven by the cleaner. On the other hand the evidence shows that the cleaner was authorised to do so by the Junior Engineer who was also sitting in the truck. 4. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and others v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke, (1995) 5 SCC 659 that when an authorised act is done in an unauthorised manner, the act is certainly in the course of employment and the vicarious liability will be attached to the owner of the vehicle. The vehicle in that case was driven by another person under the authority of the government driver who was in charge of the vehicle. The Court held that the Government cannot escape the liability for payment of compensation for the accident which was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the person concerned. The same view is expressed by the Supreme Court in Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy and others, (1996) 5 SCC 21. 5. As regards the quantum of compensation the deceased in this case was 16 years old. She was only a student and there is no evidence that she was earning any money to be given to her parents. The claimant, who is the father of the deceased, cannot in any sense be said to be dependent upon the deceased. He is an agriculturist and having his own source of earning. Hence, there is no question of loss of dependency in this case. 6. However, the only ground on which compensation could be given to the claimant is the mental agony suffered by him by the death of his daughter and the loss of companionship of the daughter. On these grounds that compensation is to be granted is the question. 7. Learned Counsel for the claimant places before us the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Jaimal Singh and another v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1994 (1) ACJ 447. In that case the deceased was a 14 year old boy. The Court awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to his parents. 7. Learned Counsel for the claimant places before us the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Jaimal Singh and another v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1994 (1) ACJ 447. In that case the deceased was a 14 year old boy. The Court awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to his parents. The reasoning of the Court is found in the following passage : "6. The question that now arises is as to what should be the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. It is common case of the parties that the appellants herein are the parents of the deceased who was about 14 years of age at the time of the accident and was a student of 8th class. In the case of a young boy who is studying in school and is not earning anything, it is difficult to value his future earning capacity and loss to the claimants. The Court has to assess the value of the loss of the dependency. One does not know what might have been his future if this school going boy had not died as a result of the accident at his tender age. The value of the prospects, chances or probabilities or support can, however, be estimated by taking all significant circumstances into account. There is no uniform rule for measuring the value of human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by any precise mathematics or scientific calculations. The amount recoverable depends upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case and it is true that to some extent arbitrariness or conjecture is unavoidable. The value of pecuniary loss can, indeed, never be static and it must vary by the change of time and the change of money value. In determining the compensation payable to the parents on the death of a child, the present value of the future contribution which the deceased would have made to them is a legitimate head of claim generally accepted by the courts, In the present case, the age of the father as has come in evidence was 60 years at the time of the accident and the mother, I presume, must be younger. The father was a mason and no wonder the son might have joined him soon to earn a living or continued his studies to build up a career which might have enabled him to do better in life. In the circumstances of the present case, I hold that the parents are entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who will be jointly and severally liable for the same. They shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application till payment. Of course, the amount already paid under the award of the Tribunal shall be adjusted." 8. Our attention is drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haji Zainullah Khan v. Nagar Mahapalika, 1994 ACJ 993. In that case the deceased was 20 years old student of B.Sc. 1st year. Claimants were mother, sisters and brothers. The Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of compensation. The relevant passages in the judgment are as follows : "13. Abdul Rehman deceased was about 20 years of age. His grandfather was alive on the date of the accident and, as such, there was longevity in the family. He was a B.Sc. 1st year student with bright future. The claimants asked for a meagre sum of money amounting to Rs. 1,46,900/- as compensation. It is very much the lower side but keeping in view the time lapse and also the fact that the courts below have not gone into the quantum of compensation, we are not inclined to increase the same. 14. We allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and the judgment of the High Court. We allow the compensation application of the claimants and award Rs. 1,50,000/- (rounding off the figure Rs. 1,46,900/-) as compensation to the claimants. The claimants shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 8 per cent from March 1, 1972, to March 31, 1985. Thereafter from April 1, 1985, till the date of the payment the claimants shall be entitled to 12 per cent interest. The total amount shall be paid in the name of Serunnisan, the mother of the deceased. It would be open to her to distribute the amount in any manner she likes amongst the claimants, if she so desires." 9. Thereafter from April 1, 1985, till the date of the payment the claimants shall be entitled to 12 per cent interest. The total amount shall be paid in the name of Serunnisan, the mother of the deceased. It would be open to her to distribute the amount in any manner she likes amongst the claimants, if she so desires." 9. It is seen from the reports in the above two cases that they turn on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In the case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court there is no specific reasoning as to how a sum of Rs. 40,000/-was arrived at by way of compensation. The Surpeme Court has chosen to award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- taking into account the various facts and circumstances of that case. 10. In the present case, the claimant is said to be having 6 children apart from the deceased. He has not adduced any evidence with regard to the status of the family as such excepting the fact that his source of living is from agricultural land. It is to be noted that this accident occurred on 31-3-1988 when the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was in force. Under Section 92-A under No Fault Clause a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was payable by way of compensation even if the negligence was not proved. It was later increased by the Act of 1988 to Rs. 25,000/- in case of fatal accident. Bearing that in mind and the fact that the claimant has suffered untold mental agony on account of the death of the deceased, we fix a total compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to be paid to the claimant by the respondents in the original petition. It is brought to our notice by the learned Advocate-General that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid in the first instance under no fault liability and the tribunal has passed the award for Rs. 1,10,000/- in addition to the said amount without giving any crecit to the same. That is erroneous. The Tribunal will calculate the amount pursuant to our award of Rs. 10,000/- and the sum of Rs. 15,000/- already paid to be claimant shall be given credit and adjusted. 11. 1,10,000/- in addition to the said amount without giving any crecit to the same. That is erroneous. The Tribunal will calculate the amount pursuant to our award of Rs. 10,000/- and the sum of Rs. 15,000/- already paid to be claimant shall be given credit and adjusted. 11. The Tribunal will work out the actual amount due to the claimant and if any amount is refundable by the claimant, the State Government may take steps to recover the same. Whatever amount is in deposit over and above the amount due to the claimant may be released to the State Government. 12. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and the amount of compensation fixed in the award of the Tribunal is substituted by Rs. 40,000/-. The claimant will be entitled to the interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the petition i.e., 17-5-1988, till the date of deposit. Appeal allowed.