Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1984 passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short the Tribunal) vide which compensation of Rs.30,000 was awarded for the death of their (claimants) son Bikram pal Singh in the accident. 2. Bikram Pal Singh, who was a child of 6 years, on 9.4.1983 at 7.15 p. m. was knocked down by a private taxi bearing registration No. PUG 6612 which was being driven by Tilak Raj, respondent No.1 rashly and negligently. He was taken to the Military Hospital at Pathankot immediately, where he succumbed to the injuries at 11 p. m. on the same date. F. I. R. No.146 dated 10.4.1983 was registered at Police station City, Pathankot at 9.45 a. m. Major r. S. Rawat and Kapuri Rawat, parents of the unfortunate child, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000 on account of the death of their child. The Tribunal though found Tilak Raj guilty of having driven the taxi in a rash and negligent manner and thereby causing the death of bikram Pal Singh, but a compensation of rs.30,000 only has been awarded to the claimants, vide award dated 8.12.1984. The said award is under challenge in the present appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded was meagre. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence adduced on record. 4. Indisputably, appellant No.1 was a major in the Army at the relevant time. Bikram Pal Singh deceased was six years old at the time of the accident. He was studying in the Central School. As his father Major R. S. Rawat was holding a very high position in the Indian Army, the deceased child had the high prospects of studying up to the highest level. Consequently, he would have settled in his life in a high position. The observation made by the Tribunal that the child would not have been able to support his parents after his marriage and, accordingly, he awarded a meagre compensation of Rs.30,000. The reasoning given by the Tribunal does not appeal to reason. The parents do not expect merely the financial support from their children but they also mentally enjoy when their children attain high positions in life. The reasoning given by the Tribunal does not appeal to reason. The parents do not expect merely the financial support from their children but they also mentally enjoy when their children attain high positions in life. They also expect that their children would be in a position to support them during their old age, physically as well as monetarily. The parents also get the love and affection of their children during their lifetime, which cannot be evaluated in terms of money. I am of the considered opinion that the claim of Rs.2,00,000 made by the appellants was not on the higher side. The claim made by the appellants was quite reasonable and genuine. 5. Consequently, I allow the appeal and by modifying the award dated 8.12.1984 passed by the Tribunal, I enhance the compensation to be awarded to the appellants to the tune of Rs 2,00,000 along with 9 per cent interest/per annum from the date of the claim application filed before the tribunal till realisation. The respondents shall be liable to make the payment of the compensation to the appellants jointly and severally. Appeal allowed.