Satish Chandra, J.:- This is the First Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 13-11-2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sultanpur, in Claim Petition no. 214 of 1997(Ram Ashish Maurya Vs. Nand Lal Yadav and other). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16th June, 1997 at about 10 A.M. Sri Shailesh Kumar aged about 41/2 years and a student of K.G. Class was going with his uncle Sri Ram Kishun Maurya at Khateerpur Aata Chhakki at Kadipur-Chanda road, Sultanpur., a Jeep No. U.P. 62 A/8101 driven by Sri Harish Chandra Upadhyay and owned by Sri Nand Lal yadav hit him, as a result, he died on the spot. The claimant-respondent i.e. parents of the deceased, have filed a claim petition for the compensation of Rs. 11,50,000/-. The said vehicle was insured by the appellant company. The Tribunal in its impugned order observed that the driver was having a valid driving licence and the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant company on the date of accident. Finally, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 67,000/- as compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant company has filed the present appeal. 4. With this background, Sri Waquar Hashim, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the Tribunal was erred in law as well as in fact while passing the impugned order as finding of the facts are perverse to the material facts and the evidence on record. He further submits that the owner of the vehicle has denied the accident but the Tribunal has awarded the compensation. Lastly, he made a request to quash the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. From the record, it appears that the Jeep No. U.P. 62A/8101 was driven by the driver, namely, Harish Chandra Upadhyay, and at the time of accident, the driver was having valid driving licence. As per the statement of the eyewitness and the other evidence, it is found that the vehicle hit the child who died on the spot. From the record, it also appears that on the date of accident, the jeep was duly insured. As per the statement of the eyewitness and the other evidence, it is found that the vehicle hit the child who died on the spot. From the record, it also appears that on the date of accident, the jeep was duly insured. The Tribunal observed that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of Jeep by the driver. 7. Thus, the accident and age of the deceased are not in dispute, when it is so, then the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal appears reasonable where a compensation of Rs. 67,000/- was rightly awarded. 8. Needless to mention that 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, relevant factor would be age of parents. 9. 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. 10. In the light of the above discussions, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The statutory deposit, if any, in this Court may be sent to the Tribunal concern who shall proceed in terms of its impugned order. 11. In the result, the FAFO is hereby dismissed.