Judgment :- These four appeals have been filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. These can be disposed of together by a common judgment, as they are directed against the common award dated 15.10.79 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras in M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 85 to 87 and 271 of 1978, questioning the quantum of compensation and seeking to set aside the order of dismissal of the petition claiming compensation. 2. The material facts briefly stated are as follows:— On 6.6.77, the family comprising of the father Kedarnathan, mother Meerabai and two sons, viz , Murali and Shyam, were travelling in an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. TMY 1060 belonging to the Madras Autorickshaw Drivers Co-operative Society Ltd. the second respondent herein, who insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. the third respondent herein at about 1030 A.M. along Eldams Road. At that time, a P.T.C. bus bearing registration No. MSR 937 belonging to the first respondent-Transport Corporation came in the opposite direction which was driven rashly and negligently and knocked down the autorickshaw resulting in injuries to all the four occupants of the autorickshaw. One of the two boys, namely, Murali, died on account of crush injuries on the head and others got serious injuries. All of them were taken to the hospital. A case was registered against the P.T.C. driver. The Post-mortem was conducted on the deceased. The other three injured, who took treatment in the hospital, were subsequently discharged. Kedarnathan filed O.P. No. 85/78 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. Both Kedarnathan and his wife Meera Bai, as parents of the deceased boy Murali, filed O.P. No. 86/78 claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the death of their son in the above said road accident. Meera Bai, the mother, filed O.P. No. 87/78 claiming compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the injuries sustained by her. On behalf of the other minor boy, namely, Shyam, O.P. No. 271/78 was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. 3. The Tribunal, after recording; evidence, concluded that the driver of the P.T.C. bus was responsible for the accident, since he drove the bus rashly and negligently, resulting in the said road accident, in which one died and other three persons sustained injuries. However, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. 3. The Tribunal, after recording; evidence, concluded that the driver of the P.T.C. bus was responsible for the accident, since he drove the bus rashly and negligently, resulting in the said road accident, in which one died and other three persons sustained injuries. However, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/-to the father Kedarnathan in O.P. No. 85/78, as against the claim amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- In O.P. No. 86/78 filed by the parents for the death of their deceased son, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/-, though the claim was of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In O.P. No. 87/78 filed by the mother Meera Bai claiming compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,500/- In O.P. No. 271/78 filed on behalf of Shyam, the minor son, claiming compensation of Rs. 10,000/-, the Tribunal rejected the claim petition, as there is no medical evidence regarding the injuries. 4. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. Nos. 85 to 87 of 1978, appeals in C.M.A. Nos. 912, 914 and 915 of 1985 have been filed seeking for enhancement of the compensation. As against the dismissal order in O.P. No. 271/78, appeal, viz , C.M.A. No. 913/85 has been filed. 5. On behalf of the appellant/s, the following contentions were urged in each case. (a) C.MA. No. 912/85: The appellant Kedarnathan was an inpatient in the hospital for nearly 36 days from 6.6.77 to 12.7.77. He was given traction and fixed in one particular place in bed throughout. Ex. P.2 is the certificate which would show that he was on leave on loss of pay for two months. When he was in the hospital as inpatient for 36 days, he was attended by his wife incurring transport charges. From 13.7.77 to 17.8.77, he was out patient. In that period, he spent transport charges. He also spent money for medicines and for extra nourishment. He experienced lot of pain and suffering, since he was in bed on traction and he was not allowed to move any side. Even after his discharge, he was having collar on his neck. There is evidence to show that he had fracture on the finger 3rd metacorpol bone which resulted in the permanent bend in his finger. Due to this, the appellant, being a musician, could not use his right hand even for writing notes. Even after his discharge, he was having collar on his neck. There is evidence to show that he had fracture on the finger 3rd metacorpol bone which resulted in the permanent bend in his finger. Due to this, the appellant, being a musician, could not use his right hand even for writing notes. He was also not able to sit and sing for long hours playing music. Consequently, there is permanent disability and loss of earning power. These things have not been considered while awarding compensation of Rs. 5,000/- when his claim was Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, he restricted his claim in this appeal to Rs. 50,000/-. (b) C.M.A. No. 913/85 : The total rejection of the claim petition on behalf of the minor son Shyam is not proper, since there is evidence to show that the boy also sustained injuries in the accident. P.W.4 Doctor had spoken about the treatment given to the boy. The pain and suffering the minor son had experienced was not taken into account by the Tribunal. However, though the original claim was Rs. 10,000/-, the claim made in this appeal is restricted to Rs. 5,000/-. (c) C.M.A. No. 914/85 : An award of Rs. 2,500/- in the application filed by the mother Meera Bai for the injuries, though Rs. 25,000/- was claimed, is not sustainable. The appellant Meerabai was working as a Music Teacher. For two months she did not attend the class due to which there is loss of salary and she also sustained injuries on her face. The Tribunal did not take into consideration the pain and suffering she had due to the injuries sustained by her. Though the original claim was Rs. 25,000/-. In this appeal, the appellant restricted her claim to Rs. 20,000. (d) CMA No. 915/85 : An award of Rs. 15,000/- in the petition filed by the appellant on behalf of their deceased son claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- is quite meagre and too low. The deceased boy was the first son. He was a brilliant student. The total rejection of pecuniary loss is unsustainable. An amount of Rs. 7,500/- for the mental agony for the death of their son, that too, the eldest boy in accident, would not commensurate with the mental agony and shock that the appellants had suffered. However, the claim f or the death of their son is restricted to Rs-50,000/-’ in this appeal. 6. An amount of Rs. 7,500/- for the mental agony for the death of their son, that too, the eldest boy in accident, would not commensurate with the mental agony and shock that the appellants had suffered. However, the claim f or the death of their son is restricted to Rs-50,000/-’ in this appeal. 6. On behalf of the first respondent, Pallavan Transport Corporation, while repelling the above contentions, the counsel, in justification of the award, would contend that the quantum and the findings were correct and justified. 7. For better appreciation of the issues involved, let met first refer to the circumstances under which and the manner in which the accident had occurred in Eldams Road. It was a straight road. The appellants along with the deceased boy were travelling in the autorickshaw going from East to West on 6.6.77 at about 10.30 P.M. Both the appellants, Kedarnathan and Meera Bai, the husband and wife, were working as Lecturer and Teacher in the Music College at Palghat. 8. In order to attend a marriage of their relative, they came to Madras. After attending the marriage, they got into the autorickshaw at the junction of Alwarpet, in order to go to her mothers house at Mambalam. When the autorickshaw moved about a furlong, the P.T.C. bus, which was coming in the opposite direction at a very great speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the autorickshaw. The front right portion of the bus hit the autorickshaw on its right side and completely damaged the whole body and rear portion. The deceased boy sitting at the corner of the autorickshaw was seriously injured, as his head was crushed inside the autorickshaw and other claimants sustained serious injuries. The Eldams Road is 12.70 metres in width. There is platform on either side of the road at the place of occurrence. 9. The Tribunal discussed in detail the evidence of P.W.1 Kedarnathan, the father of the deceased and P.W.2, the wife of P.W.1, According to them, the autorickshaw in which they were travelling was proceeding from east to west on the left side of the road and at that time, the P.T.C. bus came in the opposite direction at a high speed and violently hit the autorickshaw on its right side throwing all its inmates down. They would also state that the autorickshaw was proceeding close to the left pavement and the P.T.C. bus came fast overtaking another vehicle and knocked down the autorickshaw. After impact, it is noticed that the bus itself proceeded to a distance of 50 metres and stopped there. 10. The driver of the P.T.C. bus also has been examined. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined. On this basis, the Tribunal found that the driver of the bus had gone to the wrong side at a very great speed and he was negligent and as such, the bus driver alone was responsible for the accident. As against the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, there is no appeal by the first Respondent-Transport Corporation. Therefore, this Court would confine itself only with reference to the quantum of compensation. 11. Let me now take one by one. Kedarnathan is the appellant in C.M.A. 912/85 as against the award passed in O.P. No. 85/78. He claimed total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- under various heads. The claim of Rs. 2,000/-was made for loss of earning from 6.6.77 to 17.8.77. Rs. 1,000/- was claimed towards transport charges, Rs. 4,000/- was claimed towards extra nourishment, Rs. 5,000/-was claimed towards medicines and other expenses, Rs. 50,000/- was claimed for pain and suffering, Rs. 20,000/- was claimed towards permanent disability and Rs. 18,000/- was claimed towards loss of earning power. Out of this claim, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,000/- towards loss of earning, Rs. 500/- as extra nourishment, Rs. 500/-for medicines and Rs. 3,000/- for pain and sufferings. 12. The medical evidence is that the appellant Kedarnathan sustained fracture on the fingure 3rd metacorpol bone. He was an inpatient in the hospital from 6.6.77 to 12.7.77. According to P.W.5 Doctor, P.W.I had sustained fracture on the finger 3rd metacorpol bone. The patient was given traction for the neck, head and hand. According to the Doctor, this process would certainly have caused pain and discomfort. 13. Admittedly, the appellant is the Lecturer in Music at the Music College at Palghat drawing a total monthly emoluments of Rs. 946/-. It is clear from the evidence that he resumed duty only on 19.8.77. The patient was given traction for the neck, head and hand. According to the Doctor, this process would certainly have caused pain and discomfort. 13. Admittedly, the appellant is the Lecturer in Music at the Music College at Palghat drawing a total monthly emoluments of Rs. 946/-. It is clear from the evidence that he resumed duty only on 19.8.77. Hence, he is entitled for loss of earning for two months from 6.6.77 to 17.8.77, Absence of evidence to show that his absence was treated as leave on loss of pay cannot be a ground to reject his claim under this head. He has claimed Rs. 1,000/- for transport charges, Rs. 4,000/- for extra nourishment and Rs. 5,000/- for medicines. The Tribunal rejected the claim under these heads, merely, because of the assumption that the claimant was as inpatient in the government hospital where food and treatment are given free of cost. 14. It is the evidence of the appellant that for 36 days, he was an inpatient and for other nearly 33 days, he was as out patient. Therefore, the appellant would have certainly incurred transport charges. Therefore, it cannot be proper to reject the claim for transport charges, without taking into consideration of the evidence of P.W.I supported by P.W.2. 15. Admittedly, P.W.1 joined college only after two months. As indicated earlier, the appellant Kedarnathan had traction and had a neck collar continuously, even after discharge. He also had fracture on the finger 3rd metacarpol bone. According to the appellant, there is a bend in the finger due to which he was not able to write notation and he was unable to sit continuously to give music performance. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for the compensation not only for the pain and suffering, but also for the permanent disability and for loss of earning power. 16. However, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 3,000/- for pain and suffering and rejected the claim under other heads. This, in my view, is purely wrong. Therefore, in addition to Rs. 5,000/- awarded on two heads by the Tribunal to the appellant, Kedarnathan, Rs. 45,000/- to be added and the appellant is entitled to get the enhanced total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and as such, the appellant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs. 45,000/-towards other heads namely pain and suffering, permanent disability, loss of earning power and transport charges. 17. 45,000/- to be added and the appellant is entitled to get the enhanced total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and as such, the appellant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs. 45,000/-towards other heads namely pain and suffering, permanent disability, loss of earning power and transport charges. 17. Therefore, C.M.A. No. 912/85 is allowed holding that the appellant Kedarnathan is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/-along with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation. 18. The next appeal is C.M.A. No. 913/85. On behalf of the minor son Shyam, the claim petition O.P. No. 271/78 was filed. Though there is evidence that the appellant, the minor son, was also involved in the accident and that the minor son, Who was admitted in the Government Royapettai Hospital was referred to the Government General Hospital, there was no medical evidence adduced to show that he sustained any injury. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the claim as far as the minor son Shyam is concerned. Therefore, this appeal, viz, C.MA. No. 193/85 is dismissed. 19. Another appeal is C.M.A. No. 914/85 which has been filed by the mother Meerabai. She filed thee claim petition before the Tribunal in O.P. No. 87/78 claiming compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the injuries sustained by her. According to P.W.6 Doctor, all the injuries sustained on her face were simple injuries and x-ray was normal. Though she would state that on account of those injuries, she could not sit for long hours and give music performance, the Doctor has not spoken any word about this alleged disability. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the appellant Meera Bai did not attend the college for 2 months and she was only in the hospital for 10 days, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,500/- for pain and suffering for the injuries sustained by her and Rs. 1,000/-towards transport charges and extra nourishment. In my view, the reasons given by the Tribunal for fixing the said quantum cannot be said to be improper. Consequently, C.M.A. No. 914/85 is also dismissed. 20. The fourth appeal in C.M.A. 915/85 The appellants are the parents of the deceased boy. 1,000/-towards transport charges and extra nourishment. In my view, the reasons given by the Tribunal for fixing the said quantum cannot be said to be improper. Consequently, C.M.A. No. 914/85 is also dismissed. 20. The fourth appeal in C.M.A. 915/85 The appellants are the parents of the deceased boy. They claimed compensation for the death of their son, Murali, aged about 6 years at the time of accident. The deceased boy, who would have been a bright student was studying in the I std. in the Convent at Palghat. The deceased boy had 18 injuries on his person ia the said accident. Since the impact was too heavy, the head of the young boy was almost crushed. The depressed fracture extended from right frontal to right occipital bone to the extent of 29 cms and the pieces of skull bones were seen in base of skull in anterior cranialfossa. Both were on account of the head injuries. According to the Tribunal, the injuries on the deceased would speak for themselves, as they would reveal the force with which the bus had hit the deceased. 21. The parents of the deceased claimed Rs. 50,000/- for pecuniary loss, Rs. 250/- for transport charges, Rs. 25,000/- for the loss of expectation of life, Rs-5,000/- for the loss of prospects and happy life of the deceased, Rs. 250/- for the mental shock and pain of the deceased and Rs. 19,500/- for the mental agony and shock of the parents. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 7,500/- for loss of prospects and expectation of life and another sum of Rs. 7,500/- as compensation for the mental agony of the appellants. Thus, the appellants were totally awarded Rs. 15.000/- for the death of their son. 22. While awarding compensation on these two heads, the Tribunal has not properly considered the other heads taking into consideration of the entire family circumstances and the background of the case. Both the father and the mother were Music Teachers employed in the Music College at Palghat. Ex. P-3 is the certificate issued by the convent at Palghat showing that the deceased boy was a smart and bright student studying in the I standard. Therefore, the possibility of the boy having bright future cannot be completely ruled out. Both the father and the mother were Music Teachers employed in the Music College at Palghat. Ex. P-3 is the certificate issued by the convent at Palghat showing that the deceased boy was a smart and bright student studying in the I standard. Therefore, the possibility of the boy having bright future cannot be completely ruled out. The age of the father was only 51 and the age of the mother was 41 on the date of the accident The parents who are educated, would certainly give a good education to the boy and that within 15 years, the boy could have attained a very high position in his life. Therefore cannot be said that there cannot be any pecuniary loss to the parents of the deceased. The parents were really interested in their sons education. The very fact that the deceased son had been put in a convent at Palghat would itself show that the parents had taken interest in the career of their son. 23. Further, the deceased was the eldest son of the appellants. Being the eldest son of the family, it could be reasonably presumed that the deceased would have effectively shared the parents responsibility in the future, but for the accident. 24. No doubt, in the matter of compensation for the loss of very small children, the Court has to weigh several imponderables and we cannot seek for precision or certainty. 25. It is urged in several cases that if the age of the deceased child is below 10 years, there is no much scope for evaluating the multiplicand exactly, but at the same time, the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefits in the future is not totally ruled out. 26. In Binghams Motor Claim Cases , the principles regarding measurement of damages have been dealt with. The following observations have been made for damages:— “A money award can be calculated so as to make good a financial loss. Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of like nature which has been destroyed or loss. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded at giving reasonable compensation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards.” 27. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded at giving reasonable compensation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards.” 27. In the light of the above principles, we have to deal with the situation, especially in the case of death of children below 10 years. 28. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act to award just compensation is wide and comprehensive. The determination of compensation would depend upon the facts of particular case, namely, family, environment, the members of the family, the health, the age of the victim, his outlook in life, the interest which the parents were taking in the child and the totality of circumstances tending to show whether the victim had a predominantly happy life or a life of misery or an insipid life. The education, character and upkeep of the child would have bees a substantial burden to the parents for many years if he had lived. He might or might not have turned out a useful youngman. We cannot adequately speculate one way or the other. It was in these circumstances, the Apex Court in C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T.K. Nair (1970 ACJ 110 = AIR 1970 SC 376 ) would observe as follows: The life expectancy of the deceased or of the beneficiaries whichever is shorter is an important factor. Since the elements which go to make up the value of the life of the deceased to the designated beneficiaries are necessarily personal to each case, in the very nature of things, there can be no exact or uniform rule for measuring the value of human life. As a general rule parents are entitled to recover the present cash value of the prospective service of the deceased minor child. In addition they ma y receive compensation for loss of pecuniary benefits reasonably to be expected after the child attains majority.” 29. Therefore, depending upon the circumstances of each case, this Court can enhance the amount of compensation, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the Tribunal has not taken into account the materials on which the claims were made on several heads. 30. As indicated earlier, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. Therefore, depending upon the circumstances of each case, this Court can enhance the amount of compensation, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the Tribunal has not taken into account the materials on which the claims were made on several heads. 30. As indicated earlier, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 7,500/- for loss of prospects and expectation of life and Rs. 7,500/- for mental agony to the appellants. In my view and in the light of the materials available on record, the appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for the loss of prospects and expectation of life and Rs. 15,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- towards pecuniary loss. So, altogether the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Since the Tribunal has awarded only 15,000/-, the first respondent is directed to pay the balance amount of compensation of Rs. 35,000/- to the appellants along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation. With this observation C.M.A. No. 915/85 is allowed and in other respects, the finding of the Tribunal is confirmed. 31. In the result, CM A.. Nos. 912 and 915 of 1985 are allowed and CM A. Nos. 913 and 914 of 1985 are dismissed, as indicated above. No costs.