- (1.) THIS appeal under S. 110 D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 3-5-1977 passed by the Motor Accident Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) awarding Rs. 7000/- to the appellants as compensation for the death of their son namely Annu, aged about 6 years, who was run over on 28-10-1974 by a truck owned by respondent No. 1 M/s. Arjun Das Parmanand.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 28-10-1974 at about 4. 30 p. m. , Annu - son of the appellants was going on Hamirpur road in the city of Kanpur on left side kacchi patri when suddenly truck No. UPD 8865 crushed him to death. This truck was rashly and negligently driven as a consequence of which Annu died on the spot. First Information Report was lodged at the police station Juhi, Kanpur by Rameshwar Parsad (P. W. 2), who had seen the boy being crushed. Post mortem examination was conducted by the Chief Medical Officer who found 4 injuries on his body. THE cause of death noted down by the doctor in the post mortem report was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to brain. The parents-appellants preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal. They claimed Rs. 500/- for the expenses incurred in the funeral rites, Rs. 8000/- for up-bringing the deceased, Rs. 500/- for mental shock and physical pain, Rs. 1000/- for filial affection and Rs. 20,000/- for normal expectation of life. Their claim was contested by both the respondents on several grounds. Respondent No. 1 M/s. Arjun Das Parmanand admitted that he is the registered owner of truck No. U. P. D. 8865. He disclosed the name of the insurer as M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. , Kanpur. Regarding facts of the accident alleged by the claimants, the respondent No. 1 has showed his ignorance and put the claimants to strict proof. On the quantum of compensation, it has been claimed by the respondent No. 1 that it was exorbitant and in any case, it was the responsibility of the insurer. A written statement was also filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Kanpur-respondent No. 2 alleging that it had no knowledge of the accident. They were not informed of the injuries sustained by the deceased. It also denied that truck No. U. P. D. 8865 was involved in any accident. It was also alleged that the Company was not liable for any compensation. No other plea was raised. On the pleadings of the parties, following Issues were framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the accident in question took place from the vehicle UPD 8865 as alleged? 2. Whether the O. P. in any way liable to compensate for the death on account of the alleged accident? 3. To what amount of damages are the petitioners entitled? and 4. Is the O. P. not liable to pay damages as the vehicle was insured?
(3.) THE claimant-appellant No. 1 himself has appeared as P. W. 1 and in support of his claim, he has produced another witness-Rameshwar Prasad as P. W. 2. None of the respondents has adduced any evidence in support of their case. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the boy was crused to death by the aforesaid truck due to negligent and careless driving. Consequently, the owner of the vehicle would be vicariously liable for the same. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the New India Assurance Co. , Ltd. The Tribunal held that both the opposite parties were liable to the amount of compensation payable for the death due to accident as per the Insurance Policy. The claim was however decreed only to the extent of Rs. 7000/- with costs and simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition to the date of recovery.;