JUDGMENT 1. - For stated reasons, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed. 2. Appellants have preferred this appeal aggrieved by award dated 05.03.2009 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota, in MAC Case No. 236/2006, whereby learned Tribunal though awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to claimants as compensation for death of Rakesh, who at the time of accident was 13 years of age, in an accident took place on 25.02.2006, but deducted therefrom 25% amount holding the deceased contributory negligent for the accident to that extent and ordered payment of compensation of Rs. 1,68,750/- to claimants. 3. Learned counsel for appellants has challenged finding of learned Tribunal whereby it has held the deceased contributory negligent for the accident to the extent of 25%. Challenge is also made to quantum of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal and it is prayed that compensation may suitably be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel for appellants has argued that merely because more than two persons, herein four persons, were riding on a motorcycle, it cannot by itself be inferred that they were responsible for contributory negligence. In support of his argument, learned counsel has cited a division bench judgment of this court in National Insurance Company Limited and others v. Kastoori Devi and Others - 1988 ACJ 8 . In that case, there was a collision between a truck and motorcycle resulting in death of motorcyclist and two out of the three persons riding on the pillion seat. The question before the division bench for adjudication was whether the fact that there were four persons on the motorcycle tantamounts to contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist. The division bench, in that case, held that carrying three persons on the pillion seat does not lead to the inference that motorcyclist was guilty of contributory negligence. 5. Learned counsel further argued that deceased, who, at the time of accident, was thirteen years of age, can hardly be held responsible for contributory negligence. He 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 minor cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence. 6. He 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 minor cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence. 6. Learned counsel for respondent insurance company opposed the appeal and submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable compensation. 7. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to rival submission and perused material on record. 8. In present case, learned Tribunal has categorically recorded a finding that it was the offending truck which was being driving rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which the motorcycle riders died. It would be a different question if in fact the court may arrive at the conclusion that a person driving the motorcycle on account of carrying more persons, in fact lost the balance and thus was himself negligent in causing accident. Merely because some more persons were carried on a motorcycle which did not contribute nor was a factor in causing an accident then such conduct alone cannot be considered as an act of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. 9. It may be that due to tender age, children made an error of judgment but that alone cannot be a reason to hold child responsible for contributory negligence. In R. Srinivasa v. K.M. Parasivamurthy and others - AIR 1976 Karnataka 92 , 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 v. A. Babudeen - 2005 (2) T.A.C. 655 (Mad.), Madras High Court held that a child aged 3½ 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. 10. 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. Driver was duty bound to take care of children and ensure that such an accident would not happen. 10. 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. 11. In this view of the matter, the finding of learned Tribunal holding the driver of the motorcycle contributory negligent to the extent of 25% cannot be sustained and same are set aside. Driver of offending vehicle alone was responsible for the accident. 12. Now, I would deal with the contention of learned counsel for appellants for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- and after deducting 25% therefrom towards 25% contributory negligence, it has ordered for payment of Rs. 1,68,750/- as compensation. Since the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding contributory negligence of deceased, has been set aside, the claimants are entitled to full compensation. 13. According to learned counsel for appellants, age of deceased in this case was 13 years, yet learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2,25,000/-, whereas this court in its judgment dated 02.11.2011, deciding a bunch of 22 appeals, leading S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 870/2001 - Smt. Nana Devi and Others v. Gurumel Singh and Others , considered judgments of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Syed Ibrahim and Others and Kaushlya Devi v. Shri Karan Arora and Others, as well as other reasoned judgments of the Supreme Court and that of this Court, held that award of compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- is just and proper for death of a child of more than 10 years but not more than 15 years of age. Therefore, learned counsel submits that learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 2,50,000/- to claimants as compensation in each case. 14. In the facts of present case and in view of fact that deceased in this case was 13 years of age at the time of accident, and relying on judgment of this Court in Smt. Nana Devi, supra, the appeal deserve to be partly allowed. The award of compensation deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 2,50,000/-. 15. In view of above, appeal deserves to succeed in part. It is accordingly partly allowed. The award of compensation deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 2,50,000/-. 15. In view of above, appeal deserves to succeed in part. It is accordingly partly allowed. Finding of learned Tribunal holding deceased liable contributory negligent 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 Partly Allowed . *******