D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both sides. ( 2 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 18-11 -2003, passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District judge at Cuddapah (for brevity "the tribunal"), allowing the M. V. O. P. No. 22 of 2001, filed under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act read with Rule 475 of the A. P. Motor Vehicles Rules claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- for the death of one Palagiri Masthan Valli caused in a road accident on 22-10-2000 due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing no. AP. 03-T-3964 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. ( 3 ) THE appellant is the Insurance company, the first and second respondents are the claimants and the third respondent is the owner of the lorry. ( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the appellant, the first and second respondents and the third respondent will be referred to as "the Insurance Company, the claimants and the owner of the lorry" respectively. ( 5 ) THE case of the claimants, in brief, is that they are the parents of the deceased minor boy by name Palagiri Masthan Valli, who died in a road accident at 11 -00 a. m. , on 22-10-2000 on Rayachoty-Cuddapah main road at Mulavanka; that the deceased was riding a bicycle along with his elder brother by name Anjaneswar towards Cuddapah side; that the driver of the lorry bearing no. AP. 03-T-3964 drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased and his elder brother were thrown at a distance of the road side; that the incident was witnessed by the father of the deceased and that while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries at 12-35 p. m. , on 22-10-2000. ( 6 ) THE Insurance Company filed counter denying the mode and manner of accident stated in the claim petition and contending that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased who tried to cross the road without observing the vehicles passing on the road and was involved in the accident; that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry; that the driver of the lorry has no valid driving licence at the time of accident; that the deceased was aged 10 years, he was not an earning member and was dependent on his parents and that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. ( 7 ) THE owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal. ( 8 ) BASING on the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the deceased by name palagiri Masthan Valli received injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 22-10-2000 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. AP. 03-T-3964 by its driver belonging to the Respondent no-1? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? ( 9 ) IN support of the case of the claimants, the first claimant examined himself as P. W. 1 and got marked Exs. A-1 to A-6 on their behalf. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced. ( 10 ) THE Tribunal after considering the entire material, including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, having held on issue No-1 that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry and on issue No-2 that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- in all, under all the heads, granted a sum of rs. 1,50,000/- towards compensation. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. ( 11 ) THE learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance company submits that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal needs interference by this Court and is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the compensation granted bv the Tribunal is higher than the compensation actually claimed by the claimants. ( 11 ) THE learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance company submits that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal needs interference by this Court and is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the compensation granted bv the Tribunal is higher than the compensation actually claimed by the claimants. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submits that the impugned award needs no interference by this Court inasmuch as the same is just and reasonable. In support of his submission, he places relies on the decisions of the karnataka High Court in North West karnataka Road Trans. Corpn. v. Kariyappa#1 and National. Insurance Co. Ltd v. Muneer#2. ( 13 ) INSOFAR as the submission of the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is higher than the compensation actually claimed by the claimants is concerned, it is settled principle of law that though the claim made by the claimants is lesser, if the tribunal or Court comes to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to more and just compensation, the Tribunal or the Court can award the same. ( 14 ) I have perused the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. The tribunal after taking into consideration the entire material, including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, and also having regard to the facts and circumstances awarded the compensation, which in my considered view is just and reasonable. ( 15 ) FROM the decision in North West karnataka Road Trans. Corpn. v. Kariyappa# relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, it could be seen that while following the decision in General Manager, karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Yellappa Dharmoji Kittur (1988) ACJ 556 (Karnataka), the observations made by the karnataka High Court, which attracts my attention as impressive, are as under:"it is impossible to estimate the magnitude of the calamity that has befallen the parents. All the bright colours of their life are etched away by this tragedy. Death has such an inexorable quality that in estimating its consequences, one can do more than recognize the total ineptitude of any logical process on which estimates are based. Death is a negation of the logic of the living. No amount of money can bring back to the hapless parents their dead son. Death has such an inexorable quality that in estimating its consequences, one can do more than recognize the total ineptitude of any logical process on which estimates are based. Death is a negation of the logic of the living. No amount of money can bring back to the hapless parents their dead son. It takes quite some time for the intensity and the utter finality of this loss of fully dawn on them. Law provides reparation only in the manner known to it, namely, making a reparation in financial terms. Niceties of calculation help us up to a point. But certainly arithmetic fails to provide a solution which common sense demands. It is in this area that a judge realizes the impossibility of comparing life with nothingness or non-existence implicit in death. As one judge asked, in a different context, how could a Judge compare his experience of life and set it against his ignorance of death?". ( 16 ) IN National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Muneer (2 supra), the Karnataka High Court upheld the award passed by the Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- in respect of the death of a child aged 4 years, in the absence of any appeal by the claimants for enhancement. ( 17 ) SIMILAR is the view expressed by various High Courts in various circumstances. ( 18 ) IN the case of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar#3, the relevant observation made by the apex Court is thus:"at the same time, it must be held that a mere speculative possibility of benefit is not sufficient. Question whether there exists a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage is always a mixed question of fact and law. " ( 19 ) FURTHER, in Nagappa v. Gurudayal singh and others#4 , the relevant portions of the observations made by the three Judges bench of the apex Court, are as under:"paragraph No-16: From the aforesaid observations it cannot be held that there is a bar for the Claims Tribunal to award the compensation in excess of what is claimed, particularly when the evidence which is brought an record is sufficient to pass such award. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paragraph No.-21: For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the m. V. Act, there is no restriction that tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the tribunal/court is to award just compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 20 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances, particularly having regard to the decisions, referred to supra, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. ( 21 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the Civil miscellaneous Appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. ( 22 ) IN the result, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs.