JUDGMENT
J.G. Chitre, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing the award passed by IInd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 172 of 1981, whereby a compensation of Rs. 9,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation of compensation amount has been awarded to the appellants.
2. The accident in question took place on 7.6.1981 in the morning at about 8 or 8.30 a.m. when deceased Mahendra, a boy aged 10 years was going towards his house from Patnipura Chouraha and was proceeding towards left side. When he reached near Nanda Nagar, Road No. 12, at a place ahead of Church, the vehicle-truck bearing No. CPO-7939 driven by respondent No. 2 Aslam s/o Shaikh Hamit in the employment of respondent No. 1 -Abdul Latif came from opposite side and the said accident took place. As per allegation of the appellants, the said truck was being driven by the driver Aslam rashly and negligently and because of such driving, it gavedash to Mahendra as aresultof that he sustained injuries and succumbed to death and when he was taken to M.Y. Hospital, Indore for medical treatment, at 12.30 p.m.
3. The Tribunal recorded the evidence, appreciated the evidence on record in view of the arguments advanced by the rival parties and thereafter passed award which is subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.
4. The only question which needs to be decided is about the quantum of compensation payable to the appellant and the rate of interest awardable to the appellants over the said amount of compensation.
5. Learned Counsel Mr. G.K. Neema appearing for the appellants vehemently argued the case in favour of he appellants and Mr. S.V. Dandvate, learned Counsel for contesting respondent i.e., respondent No. 3, vehemently argued countering the case of the appellants. It is the submission of Mr. Neema that the amount of compensation awarded to the appellants is very much low. However, it is the contention of Mr. Dandvate, Counsel for respondent No. 3 that the said amount of compensation is adequate and the rate of interest awarded there is also adequate and there is no scope of enhancement. Mr. Neema prays that the amount of compensation and rate of interest be enhanced.
6. Mr. Neema, leaned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Khashtidevi v. Amar Nath and Ors. , for substantiating his argument while Mr. Dandvate, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 invited attention to various paragraphs of the award of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal as considered all relevant judgments for the purpose of finding out the appropriate compensation to be awarded to the appellants.
7. It is true that in paragaph Nos. 25 to 30 of the impugned award the Tribunal has considered various judgment for the purpose of finding out the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant, However, Mr. G.K. Neema, learned Counsel for appellants placed reliance to the recent judgment of Division Bench of this Court quoted supra.
8. Mr. Dandvate, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the theory of payment of minimum compenation which has been advanced by Mr. Neema, learned Counsel for the appellants cannot be upheld because before 1982 there was no such provision made in Motor Vehicles Act and for the first time the provisions were made for giving compensation of Rs. 15,000/- in cases of death in motor accidents. It is his argument that the accident in question is ff the period prior to 1982, and, therefore, the theory of minimum compensation which has been advanced by learned Counsel Mr. Neema does not hold the ground.