The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of a driver to exercise caution, especially in a school zone, and the liability of the Insurance Company under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

( 1 ) THIS Appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 20-10-1975, passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, S K, mangalore, in Misc. (MVC) Case No. 21 of 1967, on his file, dismissing the petition of the claimant for compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the motor accident.

( 2 ) INJURED Gunapala Shetty, a boy of 9 years, was going on 27-1-1967 along with his brother Dhanapala Shetty (PW 6) to the school. The school was on the eastern side. At that time, according to the claimant, a car bearing Registration no. MYX 655, which was being driven from west to east in a rash and negligent manner by its driver came and dashed against Gunapala Shetty from behind. as a result of which he fell down, sustaining severe injuries. He was removed in another taxi to PW-7 Dr. M. S. Naik, who advised that Gunapala Shetty should be taken to Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore. Accordingly Gunapala Shetty was taken to Wenlock Hospital. He was admitted there as an in-patient. From there, he was transferred to Bombay and he was treated there. It is the case of the injured that as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, he lost his strength in his left leg and left hand and that he is not able to speak properly. It is his further case that he lost his memory and that he was unable to pass the examination. According to him, he has become crippled and invalid for life. On these averments, he claimed compensation o f Rs. 75000, before the Tribunal.

( 3 ) THE claim was resisted by respondents 1 and 2. Respondent-1 K. Sanjeeva Rao was one of the owners of the vehicle who subsequently died and respondent-2 K. Shantharama Rao was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time. The Insurance Company is arrayed as respondent-3. Respondents 1 and 2 resisted the claim by filing their statement of objections. According to them, the car in question belonged to the partnership firm M/s K. Sanjeeva Rao, a registered partnership firm They denied that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. At the time of accident, respondent-2 was going in the car from west to east for his mid-day meal to his house, which was opposite to Kinnigoli Church. He was going from his cloth shop situated in the heart of the town. The said road was ascending for half a furlong or so. The accident happened in the ascent near the house of respondent-2. They further contended that the boy did not suffer all the injuries as alleged. They denied that he had become permanently invalid. According to them, the accident was not the result of the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, but it was entirely due to the negligent conduct of the boy himself.

( 4 ) IT appears that after the case was remanded by this Court, the contending respondents viz. , respondents 1 (a) and 2, amended their counter by filing an additional counter dated 24-9-75. They asserted that while the injured and his brother were proceeding to the school from west to east on the southern side and when the injured was going on the right side of dhanapala Shetty, a cow came from the opposite direction and attempted to charge the injured. Being frightened, the injured suddenly tried to go towards the northern side and dashed against the car which was going on the correct side being driven slowly and carefully. The rest of the respondents adopted the additional counter. Respondent-3, the insurance Company, contended that the accident happened on account of the negligence on the part of the injured himself. According to it, the vehicle in question did not appear to have been used as required by the terms of the policy and the claim was excessive.

( 5 ) ON these pleadings, the Tribunal raised the following issues :- (1) Was the car bearing Registration No. MYX 655 driven rashly and negligently and did the claimant sustain injuries as a consequence thereof ? (2) Was the accident due to the circumstances plead