Judgment :- The transport corporation who was therespondent before the tribunal, aggrieved against the award passed by the tribunal, in M.C.O.P. No.132 of 1994, on the file of the III Additional Sub Judge, Trichirapalli, has filed the above appeal. On 9.12.1993 while the deceased Surendran was walking along the main road at Arambavur near Thazuthalai, the bus belonging to the appellant corporation bearing No.T.N.45 N 0414 dashed against the deceased and he sustained fatal injury and he died in the hospital. The father and momer of the deceased had filed the claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.132 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Court, Thiruchirapalli) claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000 towards compensation. According to them, due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, the accident had taken place. The deceased was three years old when he died and he was the only son of the claimants. According to the claimants, if the deceased is alive, there is a possibility of his becoming successful in life and he would have looked after his parents in their old age. 2. The appellant herein has filed a counter stating that the accident had taken place only due to the negligence of the deceased and the compensation asked for is on the high side. 3. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence fixed a sum of Rs.75,000 as compensation. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant has filed the above appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has not questioned the finding of the tribunal regarding the rash and negligent driving aspect, but only challenged before me mat the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal is on the high side. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased was only three years old at the time of accident, and no evidence is available before the court to show mat the deceased will grow and earn more money if he is alive, and so the award passed by the tribunal is without any basis and without any material evidence available on record. 5. It is not denied that the deceased was only three years old at the time of the accident and he is the only son of the claimants. 5. It is not denied that the deceased was only three years old at the time of the accident and he is the only son of the claimants. Though there cannot be any evidence to show that the deceased, if alive, will grow and earn more, the court has to depend upon very many uncertain factors and has to take overall picture and form the estimate. It may be sometime based upon speculation. A just and fair calculation of compensation would be what the beneficiaries would have received from the deceased as support for their maintenance, had the deceased lived and earned. The paramount consideration of the matter is only to protect the interest of the claimants so that the amount awarded to them by way of compensation serves the purpose and the object of compensating them for the loss occasioned by the tragedy of the accident. In this case, the possibility of the deceased becoming successful in life cannot be ruled out. There can be no exact, uniform rule for measuring the value of human life and me measure of damage cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. 6. In this case, the tribunal has taken into consideration of the overall picture and fixed the compensation at Rs.75,000. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of mis case cited a decision reported in RaniMangammal Transport Corporation Limited v. Ramaiamy Thevar, (1996) 1 L. W. 122. In that case, the deceased was studying in 9th Standard. On that basis the court found that he could not have rendered any assistance to his father in the business at mat time, and reduced the award amount So, that decision cannot have any assistance to the appellant herein. 7. Though it is not specifically mentioned in the order, the tribunal could have fixed the compensation at Rs.75,000, by taking into consideration of the loss of life, loss of love and affection and other expenses. So, taking into consideration of the over all picture, the compensation amount fixed by the tribunal cannot be said to be excessive or baseless. I do not find any substance in the appeal. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No.1026 of 1997 is also dismissed.