K.S. Venkataraman, J.
1. This is an appeal by the parents of an eight-year old girl who was knocked down by a Fiat car belonging to the first respondent Pothi Naicker, driven by the second respondent Moideen Pichai and insured with the third respondent, Pioneer Fire and General Insurance Co. The accident occurred on 20th February, 1968 about 4-45 P.M. They made a claim before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ramanathapuram for Rs. 10,000. The Tribunal found that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the Fiat car and that the parents were entitled to compensation. He fixed the compensation at Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by that, the parents have filed this appeal claiming Rs. 10,000. It may be mentioned that the owner of the car and the Insurance company filed in V.N.S. Pothi Naicker v. P.S. Kothandan C.M.A.No. 93 of 1970, for reduction of the quantum of compensation and that appeal was dismissed on 21st April, 1971 by Ganesan, J.
2. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the Fiat car cannot be questioned and has not been seriously questioned. The facts as stated by the Tribunal are that the road there runs north to south, that the Fiat car was coming from north, that the girl was passing from west to east, that the width of the road there was 26' (18' wide cement portion with mud portions 4' wide on either side) and that, when the girl had crossed the cement portion and was going on the mud portion in the east, the car struck her. The Tribunal discussed the evidence; and there can be no doubt that it was because the driver was driving the vehicle fast and was not keeping a proper look-out particularly at that place of traffic, the accident occurred. Hence the parents are certainly entitled to compensation.
3. On the quantum of compensation, the evidence of the parents is that they had three daughters and no sons. The unfortunate victim-girl was the second. She was the most active and intelligent girl and therefore they wanted to educate her and place her in a good position to make the family prosperous.
4. The Tribunal referred to three cases. In Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurcharan Singh 1966 A.C.J. 382, for the death of a child aged about 11/2 years, the father was awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,000. In the second case Concord of India Insurance Co. v. L.J. Machado 1966 A.C.J. 321, where a boy of 8 years old who was studying was killed, the parents were awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000. In the third case Shiv Prasad Gupta v. S.M. Sabir Zaidi 1967 A.C.J. 321, where a young man who was studying in the Intermediate class and was proposing to joint the medical profession and belonging to a well-to-do family, was killed in the motor accident, the plaintiff was given a compensation of Rs. 12,000. After referring to these cases, the Tribunal observed:
In the case now before me, the death was of a child aged about 8 years who was just studying in the IV Standard and who belonged to an ordinary family. Taking that circumstance into consideration, I find that in this case the petitioners would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5,000.
5. It has been pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a recent case Subramania Iyer v. Kunhi Kuttan Nair 1970 A.C.J. 110, that the assessment of compensation cannot be precise and that the appellate Court should be slow in disturbing the finding reached by the Courts below if they have taken all the relevant facts into consideration. Applying this criterion, though it seems to me that the Tribunal might have awarded somewhat more as compensation, it cannot be said that the award of Rs. 5,000 is so low as to justify interference in appeal. In this view, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.