Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by claimants Santosh Bai and Pappu Lal, mother and father of a stillborn child of more than eight months, dissatisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar Rajasthan) in MAC Case No.46/2004 and it is prayed that the compensation may be suitably enhanced. 2. A claim petition was filed by claimants contending that on 24.09.2003 at about 12.30 pm claimant Smt. Santosh Bai when reached at main gate of factory premise of Manglam Cement, accompanied with other women, suddenly a jeep No.RJ-33-P-0070 came from Ramganjmandi side. The jeep, which was in a high speed and being driven in rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant, as a result of which she fell down on the earth. Claimant Santosh Bai was taken to the hospital. The claimant was found to have pregnancy of about more than eight months. As a result of the accident, claimant Santosh Bai received injuries. She had a fully grown up foetus of eight months in her womb. On account of the injuries, claimant Santosh Bai was advised to give birth to the child, in order to save her life, and she gave a stillbirth. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.67,000/- under various heads. Aggrieved thereby, claimant-[appellants have approached this court with prayer for enhancement of the compensation. 3. Shri Ali Mohammad Khan, learned counsel for appellants, argued that learned Tribunal has failed to consider that there cannot be exact uniform rule or mathematical calculation of measuring life and damages. One of the important factors which ought to have been taken into account for computing just compensation is that where death of fully grown up child even if he was in the womb of mother and was yet to be born, it is to be taken as much loss of human life as other human being. Learned Tribunal has although found involvement of vehicle Jeep No.RJ-33-P-0070 and negligence of driver Mohammed Anish, and that pregnancy was of duration of eight months, which fact is proved from medical certificates (Exhibits 12 and 13) issued by the nursing home. Learned Tribunal has awarded a meager sum of Rs.50,000/- for death of stillborn child. Learned Tribunal has although found involvement of vehicle Jeep No.RJ-33-P-0070 and negligence of driver Mohammed Anish, and that pregnancy was of duration of eight months, which fact is proved from medical certificates (Exhibits 12 and 13) issued by the nursing home. Learned Tribunal has awarded a meager sum of Rs.50,000/- for death of stillborn child. Learned counsel for appellants has relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Prakash and Others vs. Arun Kumar Saini and Another – 2010 (3) TAC 114 (Del.) and contended that compensation be suitably enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/-. 4. Per contra, Shri Vizzy Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent insurance company, opposed the appeal and argued that a stillborn or unborn child cannot be taken to be a complete human and that loss of his life cannot be placed at par with loss of life of a born child. He contended that a born child and unborn child cannot be placed at a same pedestal. Learned counsel, therefore, argued that award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- has to be accepted as just and reasonable award. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kusuma and Another, Civil Appeal No.7212/2011 (arising out of SLP (C) No.17905/2008), decided on 23.08.2011 = 2011(2) CCR 825 (SC), and argued that in that case, in similar circumstances where in a case of infant child, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for loss of unborn child and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering to the mother and, on appeal, the High Court enhanced the same and awarded consolidated amount of Rs.1,80,000/-, which was not interfered by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the award of the learned Tribunal is perfectly just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. 5. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. Contention of learned counsel for the respondent is noticed to be rejected for stated reasons. 7. The claimant No.1, in the present case the mother, was having pregnancy of more than eight months and it was a fully developed foetus and was due to take birth in less than one month time. The accident, involving the vehicle being driven so rashly and negligently, resulted in forced delivery of the child immediately, who died instantaneously. 8. 7. The claimant No.1, in the present case the mother, was having pregnancy of more than eight months and it was a fully developed foetus and was due to take birth in less than one month time. The accident, involving the vehicle being driven so rashly and negligently, resulted in forced delivery of the child immediately, who died instantaneously. 8. In The Divisional Controller, B.T.S. Division, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vidya Shindhe, 2005 A.C.J. 69 (Kar.), the Karnataka High Court recorded a finding that as per the doctor's evidence, if the foetus has completed 37 weeks, for all purposes even the still-born child has to be considered as child, and claim petition filed by the mother on account of death of her two days old child who was born subsequent to the date of accident was maintainable. The award of Rs.1,50,000/- by the learned Tribunal was upheld. 9. In Shraddha vs. Badresh – 2006 A.C.J. 2067 (M.P.), where accident resulted in injury to a pregnant woman carrying seven months old foetus and due to accident the claimant delivered a dead male baby by operation, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.80,000/- towards non-pecuniary compensation), which was enhanced by the High Court to Rs.2,50,000/- holding that a stillborn child has to be considered as a child, and while doing so, the High Court followed the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of the Divisional Controller, B.T.S. Division Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vidya Shindhe, supra. 10. In Bhanwaribai vs. New India Assurance Company Limited – 2006 A.C.J. 2085 (Kar.), the claimant suffered abortion on account of accident. The Karnataka High Court considered the death of foetus in womb at par with death of a minor and recorded a finding that in the case of abortion and death of foetus in the womb should be considered at par with the case of a death of a minor. 11. In Branch Office, New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Krishnaveni – MANU/TN/2882/2009 (Mad.), the Madras High Court relied on a judgment of Karnataka High Court in the Divisional Controller, B.T.S. Division Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vidya Shindhe, supra. 11. In Branch Office, New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Krishnaveni – MANU/TN/2882/2009 (Mad.), the Madras High Court relied on a judgment of Karnataka High Court in the Divisional Controller, B.T.S. Division Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vidya Shindhe, supra. That was a case where accident resulted in death of a pregnant woman with a nine months pregnancy and held that stillborn baby has to be considered as child and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded for loss of child in mother's womb. 12. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Santhilal Patal – 2007 (4) A.C.D. 835 (A.P.), held that an unborn child aged five months onwards in the mother's womb till its birth can be treated as a child in existence. The unborn child to whom the live birth never comes can be held to be a person who can be the subject of an action for damages of his death, and the legal heirs of the child were also held entitled to compensation. 13. In Manikuttan vs. M.N. Baby – 2009 A.C.J. 1497 (Kerala), wherein the accident resulted in death of a pregnant woman carrying a four months old foetus, the Kerala High Court recorded a finding that foetus is another life in the woman and it comes as a baby in the course of time. Loss of foetus upon death of a pregnant woman is actually loss of a child in the offing for the husband of the woman. The claimant in that case was held entitled to claim compensation separately for the loss of child in the womb of his wife, who died in the accident. 14. The Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar vs. Prem Lal – 1996 A.C.J. 980, has taken a different view and held that foetus is a part of the body of the deceased and no separate compensation is admissible on the ground of loss of foetus. 15. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in Margappa Shethappa Vadar vs. Proctor and Gamble India – 2008 A.C.J. 2802, has taken a contrary view holding that unborn child in the womb is not a person within the meaning of Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 16. 15. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in Margappa Shethappa Vadar vs. Proctor and Gamble India – 2008 A.C.J. 2802, has taken a contrary view holding that unborn child in the womb is not a person within the meaning of Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 16. The Supreme Court in Said-ud Din vs. Commissioner, Bhopal Gas Victims – (1997) 11 S.C.C. 460 , awarded compensation to a child who was adversely affected due to the gas leakage, which was inhaled by her mother when the child was in the womb. The doctor, who examined the child on the sixth day of its birth, found symptoms including eruption of body and smarting of the eye as well as breathlessness. The Supreme Court, in those facts, held that as the infant too was the victim of the MIC poison, she was entitled to compensation. 17. The Delhi High Court in Prakash, supra, while following the reasons referred to above, did not agree with the view of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Rakesh Kumar, supra, and Bombay High Court in Margappa Shethappa Vadar, supra. The Delhi High Court, in support of its view, has also referred to various provisions of different enactments such as Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Section 20 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Sections 2(e) and 7 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Sections 13 and 20 of the Transfer of Property Act and Sections 312 to 316 of the Indian Penal Code, to hold that certain specific rights of even an unborn child are recognized by those provisions though in different legal context. 18. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Para 8 of its judgment in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Santhilal Patal, supra, while holding that an unborn child aged five months onwards in the mother's womb till its birth can be treated as a child in existence and the unborn child to whom the live birth never comes can be held to be a person who can be subject of an action for damages of his death, recorded its findings thus, "8. To decide whether a child in the womb of the mother can be called as a person, it is pertinent to discuss different stages of birth of a child in the womb of a mother. To decide whether a child in the womb of the mother can be called as a person, it is pertinent to discuss different stages of birth of a child in the womb of a mother. Technically the term developing ovum is used for the first seven to ten days after conception i.e. until implantation occurs. It is called an 'embryo' from one week to the end of the second month and later it is called 'foetus'. It becomes an infant only when it is completely born. The life may enter immediately on the date of conception in the form of a small cell, which gets multiplied, but physically a mother can feel the movement of child only when the foetus is twenty weeks old i.e., five months, as the cell changes its structures and texture to become an eye, legs, bones, blood, head etc. and only when the child makes movements touching the internal walls of the womb, then the actual life does take its physical form, therefore, there may be controversy as regards the exact date of life entering the foetus but there cannot be any controversy as regards the life of the unborn child if a woman is carrying seven months pregnancy, as in many instances premature delivery takes place during the seventh month of pregnancy and the child still survives. An unborn child aged five months onwards in the mother's womb till its birth can be treated as equal to a child in existence. The unborn child to whom the live birth never comes can be held to be a 'person' who can be the subject of an action for damages for his death. As already stated above a person means a human being regarded as an individual and an individual's body : concealed on his person'. Therefore, human foetus to whom person hood could be attributed was also destroyed in the accident in the instant case; had the accident not occurred the unborn child would have survived and seen the light of the day." 19. Therefore, human foetus to whom person hood could be attributed was also destroyed in the accident in the instant case; had the accident not occurred the unborn child would have survived and seen the light of the day." 19. An unborn child in the womb of a mother, if it is in the pregnancy of five months duration, it can safely be accepted to be a child who is yet to take birth and he can therefore be regarded as a human foetus who can be regarded as individual and if that foetus meets an end due to an accident involving a motor vehicle before it is actually born to live, a claim petition for grant of compensation can certain be maintained by mother or father or both, because, if the accident had not taken place, it would have certainly seen the light of day as a human being and different part of the family. 20. The judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kusuma, supra, relied on by learned counsel for the respondent insurance company, arose out of its own facts in which case the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court applied the principle for determination of amount of compensation on account of death of a stillborn child. Such is not a position here in present case in view of the discussion made above. The ratio of said judgment therefore cannot be applied to present case. 21. In the present case, admittedly the claimant No.1 Santosh Bai, as has been proved by Exhibit 12 and 13, was at relevant time having pregnancy of more than eight months and, therefore, learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in entertaining claim petition in awarding the claim; however, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for loss of stillborn child rather appears to be on lower side. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments and totality of the circumstances, that amount deserves to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- while maintaining other award of Rs. 4000/- for the injuries sustained by claimant Santosh Bai and Rs. 3000/- for medical expenses. However, the award of Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering of a mother, who lost her eight months stillborn child is a very meager sum. 4000/- for the injuries sustained by claimant Santosh Bai and Rs. 3000/- for medical expenses. However, the award of Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering of a mother, who lost her eight months stillborn child is a very meager sum. The pain and suffering of a mother as a result of untimely death of stillborn child taking shape in her womb is in fact the same which she suffers on loss of child in the offing, and the amount of mental agony and physical pain which she would have undergone, has to be rather appreciated realistically. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded on that head therefore deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-. 22. This appeal is therefore allowed. The appellants are thus entitled to received consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- (100000+25000+4000+3000).