B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, J. - (1.) THIS appeal was dismissed for default on 17th April, 1987. The present application for restoration was made on 16.7.1990. The affidavit filed in support of the application, an explanation is put forward for the delay in filing the restoration application. When this application came up for orders, we heard the appellant's counsel on merits itself to see whether there is any substance in the appeal itself.
(2.) THE appeal is against an award of the Tribunal under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The accident took place on 17.12.1983 in which a five-year old son of the respondents herein died. The learned District Judge on a consideration of evidence produced, before him, awarded a sum of Rs. 30, 000 by way of compensation. While determining this figure he took into account the provisions of Section 92-A which was introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act with effect from 1.10.1982 and which provides for no-fault-liability in a sum of Rs. 15, 000/- The main contention of the appellant appears to be that bus in question, namely, U.S.X. 1758 belonging to P.A.C. was not involved in the accident at all. Upon this question the claimants-respondents had examined P.W.2, Shco Narain Lai, the father of the child who stated that he himself saw the P.A.C. bus coming from the side of Pilibhit and dashing against his son on account of which the boy died on the spot. He stated that the accident took place near the workshop of Virendra. Besides the evidence of P.W.2, the First Information Report issued in connection with the said accident soon after the accident, clearly stated that the P.A.C. bus USX 1758 was the cause of the accident. The same incident is also found mentioned in the post-mortem report which constituted the earliest version of the accident Evidence of P.W.2 also corroborates the respondents version regarding the accident. On behalf of the appellants D.W.I the driver was examined who denied that his bus was involved in the accident. But, he admitted in his cross-examination that in his statement recorded by the Assistant Commandant after the accident, he had stated that the accident was caused by his bus but that he was not at fault for the same. Indeed, in the written statement filed by the respondent an ambiguous statement was made to the effect that the rear portion of the said bus may have hit the deceased. From all this evidence the learned District Judge rightly concluded that the bus in question was indeed involved in the accident and we see no reason to take a different view.
(3.) WE also do not think that the compensation awarded is unreasonable or excessive.;