Judgment : 1. The appellant is no other than the 2nd respondent (Insurer) to the claim petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein as claimants against said Insurer as well as owner of the crime lorry bearing No.AP-16-U-7997. The Tribunal under the impugned award granted against the claim petition respondents compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum to the claimants with the findings that their deceased daughter, by name, Vinitha, a student, aged about 8 years as on the accident, dated 05.12.2002 due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, was ran over and succumbed. 2. The grounds of appeal impugning the same are mainly with the contention that the lower Court went wrong in awarding the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as prayed for, though the maximum compensation to award for a child of 8 years with future uncertainity being a non-earning member, by taking notional prospective income, is Rs.1.00 Lakh as per a decision of this Court in 2005(2) ALT 122 and thereby to reduce the quantum so also to reduce the interest rate from 9% to 7 ½ % per annum. 3. Whereas it is the contention of respondents 1 and 2/claimants that the award of the Tribunal is just and for this Court while sitting in appeal, there is nothing to interfere either on the quantum or on the rate of interest, hence, to dismiss the appeal, if not to enhance. 4. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what amount to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest? 2. To what result? 5. POINT No.1:- Before coming to decide what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, it is apt to state that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered as stated by Lord Morris. In Ward v. James (1965(1) A11. E.R-563), it was observed by Lord Denning that award of damages in personal injury cases is basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in comparable cases. In Ward v. James (1965(1) A11. E.R-563), it was observed by Lord Denning that award of damages in personal injury cases is basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in comparable cases. Thus, in a case involving loss of limb or its permanent inability or impairment, it is difficult to say with precise certainty as to what composition would be adequate to sufferer. The reason is that the loss of a human limb or its permanent impairment cannot be measured or converted in terms of money. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives due to sudden demise. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule in measuring the value of human life or limb or sufferance and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at, by precise mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Upjohn LJ in Charle red House Credit v. Tolly (1963(2) All.E.R-432)remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver (1969(1)A11.E.R –555)observed that to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult without some guess work but noother process can be devised than that of making a monitory assessment though it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. The Apex Court in R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited (1995 ACJ 366(SC)-CA Nos.1799 &1800 of 1989 with SLP(Civil) 4586 of 1989)at paragraph No.12 held that in its very nature whatever a Tribunal or a Court is to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standard. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standard. Thus, in most of the cases involving Motor Accidents, by looking at the totality of the circumstances, an inference may have to be drawn and a guess work has to be made even regarding compensation in case of death, for loss of dependent and estate to all claimants; care, guidance, love and affection especially of the minor children, consortium to the spouse, expenditure incurred in transport and funerals etc., and in case of injured from the nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings particularly for any disability and also probable expenditure that has to be incurred from nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment required. 6. From above legal position to arrive just compensation, coming to the factual matrix, the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry, which run over the deceased girl as deposed by PWs.1 and 2 with reference Ex.A-1 – F.I.R., Ex.A-4 – Charge Sheet besides Ex.A-5 – M.V.I. Report and Ex.A-3 – P.M. Report not to mention Ex.A-2 – Inquest Report, since proved no way requires interference. Coming to the quantum, no doubt it was observed by the Tribunal by referring to the KSRTC Case (Supra), that compensation awarded therein for a deceased child of two days old was by taken the income at Rs.15,000/- per annum, which was multiplied by 15, arrived at Rs.2,25,000/- and after 1/3rd deduction, arrived to Rs.1,50,000/- and thus awarded Rs.1,50,000/- as claimed. In fact that decision clearly speaks Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded to a child of two days old. Even for arguments sake a child just born is taken entitled to the minimum compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Act; in the present case when the child met with death is aged 8 years, if on average Rs.20,000/- per year is taken as loss of dependency in all it comes to Rs.2,10,000/- without any need of deduction out of it, so to arrive the loss of future dependency the claimants suffered from their prospective bread winner and thereby the compensation arrived by the Tribunal of Rs.1,50,000/- no way needs to interfere, but for no cross objections to enhance vide decision in Ranjan Prakash vs. Divisional Manager (2010 (8) Scale – 240). Coming to rate of interest as per the settled propositions in TN State Corporation Limited v. S.Rajapriya ( 2005 (6) SCC 236 ) and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013 ACJ 1403 = (4) ALT – 35 (SC))7½ % is the reasonable rate so to reduce from 9% per annum. Accordingly, the point is answered. 7. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed, while confirming the quantum of compensation. However, by reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7 ½ % per annum from the date of petition till date of realization. The respondents to the claim petition are directed to deposit within one month from today (after deduction of any amount paid so far pursuant to the award of the Tribunal), failing which the claimants can execute and recover. On such deposit or execution and recovery, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same. There is no order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any in this M.A.C.M.A. shall stand closed.