Mohamed Shafi, J.

The 3rd respondent, insurer in O.P (MV) 662 of 1992 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta is the appellant. The award dated 2.1.1999 is under challenge.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein, the claimants before the M.A.C.T claimed a compensation of Rs.2, 03,000/-for the death of their 4 year old daughter, Neethu, in a Motor Accident. Originally, the claim was for Rs.1, 03,000/-and subsequently, by amending the petition, they made enhanced claim of Rs.2, 03,000/-.

3. The fact that Neethu, the 4 year old child of the respondents 1 and 2, studying in the U.K.G. Class met with a road accident on 3.2.1992 at about 3.40 P.M. and she succumbed to injuries at 8.30 P.M. while undergoing treatment in the Medical Mission Hospital, Thiruvalla is not in dispute. The driver and the owner of the offending lorry who were respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal did not contest. The 3rd respondent, insurer alone contested. After enquiry, the Learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the driver and the claimants therein are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,18,000/-, but restricted the compensation amount to the claim of Rs.2,03,000/-made by the claimants. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- after deducting Rs.25,000/- paid as per interim order with interest at 12% per annum and cost of Rs.1000/- against respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally and directed the 3rd respondent insurer to deposit the amount within 3 months failing which directing the insurer to pay interest at 18% per annum after the expiry of 3 months from the date of the award.

4. In this M.F.A. the appellant, insurer challenges the quantum of compensation awarded as well as the direction to pay interest at 12% and the further direction to pay penal interest at 18% on failure to deposit the amount within 3 months from the date of the order.

5. The appellant vehemently contended that the award of Rs.2,03,000/-as compensation for the death of a 4 year old child is highly exhorbitant and out of all proportions and against the principles laid down by this court as well as the various other High Courts and Supreme Court regarding payment of compensation for the death of young children. The counsel for the appellant also submitted that at any cost the award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in this case would have been the maximum amount awardable in this case on considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record. In support of the contentions that the compensation awarded in this case is highly exhorbitant, the counsel for the appellant relied upon various decisions.

6. In the decision reported in Gobald Motor Service Ltd and another V. R.M.K.Veluswamy and others (1958-65 ACJ 179), the Supreme Court observed as follows.

"Therefore, the actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the respondents may depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even partly a conjecture. Shortly stated, the general principle is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of the death, that is, the balance of loss and gain to a dependant by the death must be ascertained."

That was a case in respect of compensation claimed under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 in respect of an accidental death occurred in September 1947. In that case the award of Rs.25,250/- under Section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act and Rs.5000/- under Section 2 of the Act to the widow and 5 sons and Rs.1000/- to the father of the deceased is upheld by the Supreme Court.

7. In the decision reported in C.K.Subramania Iyer and others V. T.Kunhi Kuttan Nair and others (1970 ACJ 110), the award of Rs.6000/- being compensation as against the