Hon'ble KHAN, J.—The parents of the deceased child namely. Subhash, aged about 3-years, have preferred this miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of the award dated 16.08.2001 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur and the Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur in M.A.C.T. Case No.1904/1997, whereby a total compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded in their favour. 2 Brief facts of the case are that on 25.10.1997 at about 12.00 P.M. one Subhash, who was standing at the side of the road, a roadways bus bearing No.RJ-14-P-3074 driven by the respondent No.2 and in the regular employment of the respondent No.1, struck Subhash, who died on the spot. 2. On behalf of the claimant-appellants, two witnesses were examined, along with the documents from Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 11. No defence was led by the respondents. 3. The learned Tribunal after having regard to all the facts and circumstance of the case, including the evidence rendered decided the award, as aforementioned in favour of the claimant-appellants. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as record of the learned Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the claimantappellants pleaded that the deceased was a child and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohari Lal and Others vs. Avtar Singh and Others, reported in 2008 R.A.R. 249 after going through the entire catena of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court had decided the principles in case of a child death, wherein in the case of death of a child of the age groups of 5-10 years & 10-15 years compensation of Rs.1,80,225/- be awarded respectively. 6. As per arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants the case is squarely covered by the above cited judgment delivered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohari Lal and Others (supra) and the deceased being in the age group of 5 to 10 years should have been awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- in place of Rs.1,00,000/- only. 7. The learned counsel for the non-claimantrespondents argued that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is more rational and just, and no interference is called for because looking to the age of the deceased child, the learned Tribunal has arrived at a just and proper conclusion of compensation. 7. The learned counsel for the non-claimantrespondents argued that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is more rational and just, and no interference is called for because looking to the age of the deceased child, the learned Tribunal has arrived at a just and proper conclusion of compensation. 8. The learned counsel for the non-claimantrespondents cited A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 3218 (Lata Wadhwa and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others) and also III (2007) A.C.C. 10 (S.C.) = RLW 2007(4) SC 3068 (Kaushlya Devi vs. Karan Arora and Others) and pleaded that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the compensation for the death of a child coming in between the age group of 5 to 10 years, as Rs.1,50,000/- and in the case of Kaushlya Devi (Supra) the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was found to be just and reasonable. 9. In the light of these judgments, as per arguments of the learned counsel no interference is required to be called for. 10. In Kaushlya Devi's case (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that in case of death of child the determination of damages for loss of human life is extremely difficult task and it becomes more baffling when deceased is child or non-earning person. In cases of young children of tender age, neither their income at time of death nor prospects of future income nor chances of advancement of their career nor financial loss suffered by parents is capable of mathematical computation and figure of compensation in such cases involved good deal of guess-work. 11. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satender and Others, reported in 2007(1) T.A.C. 11 (S.C.) = RLW 2007(3) SC 2126 it has been observed that in case of death at an early stage, uncertainties in regard to academic pursuits, achievements in career and advancement in life, cannot be assumed with reasonable certainty – Neither income of child being capable of assessment on estimated basis nor financial loss suffered by parents is capable of mathematical computation and the Hon'ble Apex Court in this case reduced the compensation from Rs.3,40,000/-to Rs.1,80,000/-. 12. In the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) compensation was fixed as Rs.1,50,000/- and in the case of Kaushlya Devi (supra) it was Rs.1,00,000/-. 13. 12. In the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) compensation was fixed as Rs.1,50,000/- and in the case of Kaushlya Devi (supra) it was Rs.1,00,000/-. 13. In the light of these observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court and a perusal of the cited judgment decided by this Court in the case of Mohari Lal and Ors. (Supra) it reveals that Lata Wadhwa and Ors. (supra), State of Haryana and Anr. vs. Jasbir Kaur and Ors., reported in III (2003) ACC 90 (SC), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chand, 1996 (4) S.C.C. 362 = RLW 1996(2) SC 130 and Smt. Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., JT 2007(5) SC 78 = RLW 2007(2) SC 1384 were referred and after analyz-ing the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court this Court has decided about the compensation for the victim non-earning children as under;- 1. The claimants of the victim child in the age group upto 5 years shall be entitled to compensation to a sum of Rs.one lac. 2. The claimants of victim child in the age group of 5 to 10 years shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. 3. The claimants of the victim child in the age group of 10 to 15 years shall be entitled to compensation to a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-. 14. In these circumstance, the cumulative effect of all the above cited judgments would be that the ratio decided for awarding compensation for the age group of victim of 5 to 10 years the compensation Rs.1,80,000/-would be just and proper. The learned Tribunal has only awarded Rs.1,00,000/ in the light of these circumstances, it would be just and proper if Rs.80,000/-more is also awarded to the claimant-appellants. To this extent, this miscellaneous appeal deserves to be allowed. 15. Consequently, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. The claimant-appellants are entitled to Rs.80,000/-, in addition to what the learned Tribunal has awarded to the claimant-appellants. The claimantappellants will be entitled to interest on this enhanced amount at the rate, as directed by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Rests of the other directions would be same, as decided by the learned Tribunal. The enhanced compensation, including the interest will be deposited in any of the nationalized Bank account of the claimantappellants for a period of two years.