G.M.LODHA, J. - (1.)THIS appeal relates to an accident that took place on 23rd, Nov. 1956 at 9.00 a.m. in the City of Jaipur when Car No. RJL 1777 struck the Cyclist Gyarsilal. Before the cyclist could remove himself from the accident site, the Bus No. RJL 9231 coming from the other side took him under it's body. Ultimately Gyarsilal died with the injuries in this accident. The tribunal has allowed compensation of Rs. 36,000/ - against Gurendra Gupta who was ultimately found to be the owner of the Car but dismissed the claim against all others. The Car earlier belonged to Dr. Jainath and it was insured with one New India Assurance Company. The bus belonged to M/s Central Transport Service which was owned by M/s Kamal and Company, and insured with the New Great insurance Company of India.
(2.)THE Car changed it's ownership and on account of that on the date of the accident Gurendra Gupta was the owner and therefore, the tribunal found that Insurance Company cannot be held liable. So far as the bus is concerned, it was held that there was no negligence or rashness of the driver of the bus in this accident and therefore M/s Kamal and Company and it's insurer New Great Insurance Company both were held not to be liable for payments of any claim.
Mr. Agarwal learned Counsel for the appellants has challenged these findings and prayed for decree against both the Insurance Companies and M/s Kamal and Company who owned the bus and Shivkumar the earlier owner of the car. The [earned counsel for the respondent have resisted the prayer and supported the finding of the tribunal.

(3.)HOWEVER , without adjudicating the liability of M/s Kamal and Company and the two Insurance Companies namely, M/s New India Assurance Company and the New Great Insurance Company of India, in view of the humanitarian aspect involved in such compensation cases, it was suggested by the Court that both the Insurance Companies should pay Rs. 10,000/ - each ex -gratia to the claimants in the facts and circumstances of the case. Fortunately the learned Counsel Mr. Srivastava and Mr. Bhargava representing the two Insurance Companies have, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case agreed to the above suggestion.