JUDGMENT 1. - The case has come up for admission. Counsel of both the parties agree to dispose of the case at admission stage. 2. This civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (District Judge), Jhunjhunu vide order dated 14.2.1995 whereby a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was awarded in favour of claimant Mst. Amina and as against the State of Rajasthan (appellant) and Richh Pal Singh Batad (respondent No. 5) by adjudging them liable jointly and severally for the payment of the amount of the award. The State of Rajasthan has challenged the award on the ground of amount of compensation being excessive as well as on the ground that at the time of accident, respondent No. 5, Richh Pal Singh was though posted as In-charge of Police Station, Jhunjhunu but he was not authorised to drive the vehicle as Sardara Ram was the driver of the police jeep, who stands exonerated by the Tribunal and as such there is no liability of the State. This court vide order dated 2.8.2000 observed that the award pertains to the death of 9 years old student and higher compensation could be awarded in view of the judgment rendered in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 258 of 1997, Jagdish & Ors. v. Laldev Singh & Ors. decided on 9.1.1998 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 481/96 decided on 3.7.98 an,; hence the notices for enhancement of compensation were issued to the respondents. 3. Heard the counsel of the parties on the rival submissions made on the point of challenge under appeal as well as on the notice of enhancement of compensation issued by this court referred to hereinabove. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has strenuously argued that he has been wrongly held liable and deserves to be absolved from any liability under the claim as he was not the driver of the police jeep as the regular driver of the jeep has been absolved by the Tribunal. 4. In view of the arguments advanced on the point of quantum of compensation, it is revealed that though this court vide judgment passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 481 of 1996, Srimati Bachi Devi & Ors. 4. In view of the arguments advanced on the point of quantum of compensation, it is revealed that though this court vide judgment passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 481 of 1996, Srimati Bachi Devi & Ors. v. Ramji Lal & Ors., decided on 30.07.1998 , the quantum of compensation in case of a child of 7 years has been assessed to be Rs. 1,50,000/ on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Concord of India Finance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi, 1980 ACJ 55 (SC) but thereafter the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender and Ors., 2007(1) WLC (SC) Civil 196 : 2007(1) TAC 11 (SC) granted compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- in a case of death of a child of 9 years and observed as under : "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. Thereafter, 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." 5. Accordingly, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Mali & 52 Others v. M.K. Vasu and 52 Others, 2008(1) WLC (Raj.) 589 has also taken a similar view by following the Apex Court judgment in Satender's case (supra), and as such this case also deserves to be decided in the light of the above legal position. 6. As regards the liability of the State of Rajasthan for the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 5, Richh Pal Singh Batad, who was working as SHO Police Station, Kotwali Jhunjhunu, the State cannot escape the liability as the State was the owner of the vehicle and the person driving the vehicle was in the employment of the State and thus the finding of the learned Tribunal calls for no interference. Likewise, the finding of the liability of respondent No. 5 as joint and several with that of the State also does not call for interference as the same is based on proper appreciation of evidence wherein the respondent was found to be driving the vehicle at the time of accident. 7. Thus, the amount of compensation awarded in the appeal deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 1,80,000/- and the appeal of the State.of Rajasthan deserves to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 1,80,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of this order and the same shall be payable within three months failing which, the amount shall entail interest at the rate of 9% p.a. 9. The appeal of the State of Rajasthan is accordingly dismissed and the award stands modified as indicated hereinabove. *******