JUDGMENT 1. - For stated reasons, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed. 2. Challenge, in this appeal, is made to award dated 03.02.2006 of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Tonk (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), in MAC Case No.1154/2005 (2903/2001) on the ground that learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 25% out of awarded sum of Rs. 1,57,000/-, for contributory negligence of the deceased child, who was three years of age at the relevant point of time. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for appellants is that deceased, who, at the time of accident, was three years of age, can hardly be held responsible for contributory negligence. Learned counsel for appellants has cited judgments of Karnataka and Madras High Courts in R. Srinivasa v. K.M. Parasivamurthy and others-AIR 1976 Karnataka 92 and President, Malikdhinar English Medium School v. A. Babudeen-2005 (2) T.A.C. 655 (Mad.) to argue that child cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence. 4. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable compensation. 5. It may be that due to tender age, children made an error of judgment but that alone cannot be a reason to hold the child responsible for contributory negligence. In R. Srinivasa, supra, Karnataka High Court held that a boy of six years cannot be held guilty of contributory negligence. An older child may be, but it depends on circumstances of each case. Such guilt is available only if the boy is of such an age as reasonably expected to take precaution for his safety. In President, Malikdhinar English Medium School supra, Madras High Court held that a child aged 3= years can hardly be blamed for such an accident, even partly. Driver was duty bound to take care of children and ensure that such an accident would not happen. 6. This court in its judgment dated 23.05.2012 delivered in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.589/2011-Udai Singh v. Munna Lal and Another , has held that a child of such a tender age cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence. 7. In present case also, deceased was three years of age at the time of accident and it was bounden duty of driver of offending vehicle to be careful while plying the heavy vehicle on the highway. 7. In present case also, deceased was three years of age at the time of accident and it was bounden duty of driver of offending vehicle to be careful while plying the heavy vehicle on the highway. Finding of learned Tribunal in holding deceased responsible for contributory negligent to the extent of 25%, cannot be sustained. Driver of offending vehicle alone was responsible for the accident. 8. In view of above, the appeal deserves to succeed. It is accordingly allowed. Finding of learned Tribunal holding the deceased child of 3 years of age liable for accident to the extent of 25%, is set aside. Driver of offending vehicle is held responsible for the accident. Claimants are held entitled to receive differential amount of compensation together with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.Appeal Allowed. *******