JUDGMENT : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. The instant misc. appeal, seeking enhancement, has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as ‘the Act’) against the judgment and award dated 01.02.2016 (hereinafter as ‘the impugned award’) passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur (hereinafter as ’the learned Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.394/2012 (2089/2014) (filed under Section 166 of the Act), whereby the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.5,00,000/-along with interest @8.5% (from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 13.04.2012 to the appellants/claimants and held the respondents/non-claimants jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 29.09.2011 at about 04:40 pm, deceased Hanuman Puri (8 years old at the time of the accident) while deceased was walking towards his house, then a Scorpio Vehicle bearing registration number RJ-19-UA-1555, which was plied by its driver rashly and negligently, hit deceased from behind, as a result of which Hanuman Puri died on the spot. The FIR was lodged before the Police Station Dangiyawas, Jodhpur and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against driver of the offending vehicle. Subsequently, the appellants/claimants filed the claim petition- MAC Case No.394/2012 (2089/2014) under Section 166 of the Act before the learned tribunal, seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased child to tune of Rs.2,87,60,000/-. The respondent nos.1 and 2 and 3 filed reply to the claim petition before the learned tribunal while refuting the claim laid by the claimants. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties learned tribunal framed four issues. The appellants/claimants examined AW.1 Santosh and AW.2 Kailash Puri and produced some documentary evidences whereas the respondents did not examine any witness, however, produced documentary evidence before the learned Tribunal. After hearing the parties and on the basis of the material available on record the leaned tribunal partly allowed the MAC case no. 394/2012 (2089/2014) vide the impugned award and awarded Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @8.5% (from the date of the filing of the claim petition i.e. 13.04.2012 as compensation to the appellants/claimants and held respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned award the instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants. 7. 394/2012 (2089/2014) vide the impugned award and awarded Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @8.5% (from the date of the filing of the claim petition i.e. 13.04.2012 as compensation to the appellants/claimants and held respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned award the instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded higher compensation on account of death of a child, who was eight years of age at the time of accident and has misconstrued the law laid by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal v. Lala : 2013 ACJ 2594 . Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the claimants have failed to prove the age of the deceased by exhibiting reliable documents. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants No.1 and 2 supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal and submits the same calls for no interference by this Court. None is present on behalf of respondent No.3 and 4. 9. The instant misc. appeal was admitted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.05.2016 and an interim order was passed while directing the appellant to deposit Rs.3,50,000/- (inclusive of the amounts earlier paid) within three weeks from 16.05.2016. The amount aforesaid was directed to be disbursed to the respondents/claimants in accordance with law and rest of the amount was stayed during pendency of the appeal. 10. Heard the counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant and respondents/claimants and perused the material available on record. 11. This Court finds that while awarding compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of respondents/claimants, the learned Tribunal while considering the age of the deceased, who was eight years of age, has awarded compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- in favour of claimants, which is in accordance with the ratio in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of respondents/claimants is adequate and calls for no interference by this Court. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimants under the head of loss of consortium of Rs.50,000/-, which is also just and proper. 12. Accordingly, this Court finds no force in the instant misc. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of respondents/claimants is adequate and calls for no interference by this Court. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimants under the head of loss of consortium of Rs.50,000/-, which is also just and proper. 12. Accordingly, this Court finds no force in the instant misc. appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The amount withheld under the interim orders of this Court along with interest, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, shall be paid by the appellant insurance company within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment.