( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the North West Karnataka Road transport Corporation challenging the award dated 1. 2. 2001 passed in MVC 82 of 1996 by the Presiding Officer, Additional MACT raichur. In the said case, a claim was preferred by one Kariyappa and Smt. Seethamma seeking compensation for the death of their child on 24. 3. 1996. Matter was contested. Trial Judge has granted 1,05,000. 00 together with interest. MFA No. 2394 of 2001

( 2 ) THIS Appeal is filed Kariyappa and Seethamma challenging the very order dated 1. 2. 2001 passed by the Presiding Officer of additional MACT Raichur in MVC No. 82 of 1996. In this appeal dated 19th December 2002 they are seeking enhancement of compensation.

( 3 ) THE Corporation in MFA No. 1940 of 2001 has challenged the finding with regard to rash and negligent driving of the bus. They have also challenged the grant of compensation. In the connected appeal MFA No. 2934 of 2001 the claimants have challenged only the quantum. MFA No. 3399 of 2001:

( 4 ) THIS Appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the MACT No. 928 of 1994 dated 3. 4. 2001. Appellant suffered injuries and he filed MVC No. 928 of 1994. Trial judge has granted Rs. 60,000. 00 together with interest. Appellant is seeking for enhancement.

( 5 ) CORPORATION in MFA No. 1940 of 2001 is challenging a finding with regard to rash and negligent driving of the bus. They have also questioned compensation. In the connected appeal MFA No. 2394 of 2001 claimant has challenged only the quantum. In MFA no. 3399 of 2001 enhancement is sought for by the claimant.

( 6 ) ALL these appeals are heard together.

( 7 ) MFA Nos. 1940 and 2394 of 2000 arise out of same judgment dated1. 2. 2001 passed in MVC No. 82 of 1996. After hearing the learned Counsel, I have perused the material on record. From the material on record, it is seen that the accident took place on 24. 3. 1996. Deceased was going on left side of the road. At that point of time, a vehicle belonging to KSRTC bearing No. KA-I/f- 5916 caused an accident to the claimant cyclist.

( 8 ) LEARNED Judge has framed 4 issues in para-8 of the award and he has answered first issue in the affirmative, second in the negative. Finally he has granted compensation of Rs. 1,05,000. 00. In the judgment the learned Judge notices the material facts in addition to Mahazar. He considered the evidence of the driver. He then ultimately has given a finding that rash and negligent accident is proved. The said order is based on facts. I do not find any arbitrariness in the finding with regard to the claim. The contention of the Corporation, in the circumstances, is rejected.

( 9 ) IN so far as compensation is concerned, learned Judge has chosen to grant Rs 1,05,000. 00. While claimant wants enhancement, corporation states that it is on the higher side. In the connected appeal MFA No. 3399 of 2000 learned Judge has granted compensation of Rs. 60,000. 00. That was a case involving death of a boy studying in 7th standard and he was about 9 years. Counsel says that the enhancement must be granted.

( 10 ) PARTIES have referred to various citations before me for the purpose of awarding compensation. This Court has considered a case of death of a boy in GENERAL MANAGER vs YELLAPPA dharmoji KITTUR1. This Court observed as under: It is impossible to estimate the magnitude of the calamity that has befallen the parents. All the bright colours of their life are etched away by this tragedy. Death has such an inexorable quality that in estimating its consequences, one can do more than recognize the total ineptitude of any logical process on which estimates are based. Death is a negation of the logic of the living. No amount of money can bring back to the hapless parents their dead son. It takes quite some time for the intensity and the utter finality of this loss to fully down on them. Law provides reparation only in the manner known to it, namely, making reparation in financi