Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation against the Judgment and Decree passed on 22.04.2003 in MCOP No.692/1996 on the file of the Motor Accident Tribunal (Additional District Judge, (FTC-V)), Tirupur. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- On 24.02.1996 at about 2.45 p.m., the deceased Nanthinidevi was travelling in a bus belonging to the Pandian Roadways Corporation (now known as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation) bearing Registration No.TN-58-N-0035. When the bus was proceeding towards west in the Palladam to Coimbatore Road, at a bridge near Karanampet C.T.C. Canteen, the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-B-0889, which was coming from the opposite direction. Due to the accident, both the bus as well as the lorry caught fire and the deceased sustained severe burn injuries and died. The claimants are the father and mother of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.22,10,000/- but restricted the claim to Rs.20,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The appellant/Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleading, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- a) On whose negligence the accident had occurred? Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation or not? b) If so, what is the amount? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was of the view that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.52,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the award, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation has submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation. It is also submitted that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and that therefore, the Transport Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. It is also further submitted that the award of the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification, and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Heard the counsel. It is also further submitted that the award of the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification, and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P35 were marked. On the side of the Transport Corporation, one Abul Hasan was examined as R.W.1 and one Rajamanickam was examined as R.W.2, and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is one Mani, the father of the deceased. Ex.P1 is the attested copy of First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the Post Mortem Report of the deceased. Ex.P3 is the Record Sheet of the deceased. Ex.P4 is the Legal Heir Certificate of the deceased. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.52,000/-with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income 50,000/- Funeral expenses 2,000/- Total 52,000/-========= The deceased was 7 years old at the time of accident. She was studying third standard and she was very good in her studies. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. P.W.1, in his evidence stated that the deceased was the only child to him. It was also stated that the mother of the deceased had undergone family planning operation and hence the deceased, being the bright child was expected that she will do well in her studies and that the parents wanted her to become a Doctor. The father of the deceased, P.W.1, is having a bullock cart and is earning Rs.100/-per day and hence approximately he would be earning Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/-per month. But no documentary evidence produced to show that he has enough resources to provide the best education to the deceased child. After taking into consideration of the above, the Tribunal had awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. After taking into consideration of the above, the Tribunal had awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses, which is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is reasonable as the same was the prevailing rate at that time, and hence the same is confirmed. The Supreme Court in the case of Kaushlya Devi v. Shri Karan Arora and Others, (2007) 5 MLJ 1269 (SC), considered the scope of awarding compensation in respect of age group of minors and held as follows:- "8. There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendor of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measure. The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non-earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, the relevant factor would be age of parents. 9. In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the childs life-time. But this will not necessarily bar the parents claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. v. Jenkins (1913) AC 1, and LORD ATKINSON said thus: ".....all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. v. Jenkins (1913) AC 1, and LORD ATKINSON said thus: ".....all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact - there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can I think, be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them." (See Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (2001) 8 SCC 197 ) 10. This Court in Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (supra) while computing compensation made distinction between deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. 11. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation. 12. These aspects were highlighted in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender and Others AIR 2007 SC 324." 5. The Tribunal has correctly followed the principles enunciated in the Supreme Court judgment cited supra and awarded the compensation of Rs.52,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. 12. These aspects were highlighted in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender and Others AIR 2007 SC 324." 5. The Tribunal has correctly followed the principles enunciated in the Supreme Court judgment cited supra and awarded the compensation of Rs.52,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The findings given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and I do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. 6. In view of the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and hence the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.52,000/-with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.3185 of 2007 is closed. No costs. 7. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit Rs.52,000/-with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount if any, already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On making such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount from the deposit.