N.L.Untwalia, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of an order passed by the Claims Tribunal under Sec.110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Misc. Appeal 313/65 has been filed by one Champa Banerjee and Misc. Appeal 314/65 by one Chinmoy Kumar Niyogi, both against a common award made by the Tribunal.

2. It is said that on the 6th of May, 1964 at about 7-30 p.m. one Mrs. Aloka Niyogi, wife of appellant Chinmoy Kumar Niyogi, along with her son Abhijit Niyogi and a neighbours daughter Kumari Champa Banerjee, was going on a rickshaw on the Circular Road near the office of the Superintendent of Police at Ranchi, when a truck belonging to respondent No. 1 came in high speed from the opposite direction without blowing any horn and without proper lights and dashed against the rickshaw with the result that Aloka Niyogi was thrown on the road and carne under the rear wheel of the truck leading ultimately to her death; Champa Banerjee was thrown by her side and sustained some injuries and Abhijit Niyogi was thrown off into a drain away from the road and also sustained injuries.

3. Claim petitions under Sec.100A of the Act were filed by the two injured persons and Chinmoy Kumar Niyogi, the husband of the deceased Aloka Niyogi.

4. The claims were resisted by the owner of the truck aforesaid and the Insurance company by which the truck was insured. Their common defence was that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving by the truck driver but on account of the fault of the rickshaw puller who was coming in high speed and took the rickshaw on a heap of stones stacked there by the side of the road resulting in tilting of the rickshaw and the throwing down of the occupants on the road itself and that they were not liable to pay any compensation whatsoever. The Insurance Company further said that their liability, if any, was limited to a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 for which the truck was insured.

5. The claims Tribunal found that the accident had occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck and that the claimants were entitled to compensation on that account. To Champa Banerjee it awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000.00 besides the expenses incurred over her treatment amounting to Rs. 2031-95 paise as against her claim ol Rs. 7,500/-, To Abhijit Niyogi it awarded a solatium of Rs. 1000.00 only and to Chinmoy Niyogi it awarded a sum ol Rs. 12,000.00 as compensation for the shock and mental agony suffered by him due to the death of his wife.

6. As stated above, Champa Banerjee and Chinmoy Niyogi have come up in appeal. There is no appeal, however, by Abhijit Niyogi. Cross-objections have been filed in both these appeals by the respondent-owner of the truck.

7. The questions which arise ill this appeal, therefore, are:

(i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck;

(ii) Whether the appellants were entitled to compensation; and

(iii) Whether the quanta of compensation have been decided on correct principles.

8. I must state at the outset that the evidence on record leaves not even an iota of doubt that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck. The Claims Tribunal has come to that finding on a proper consideration of the entire evidence on record and I find no fault whatsoever with that conclusion. It appears that the claimants examined two witnesses who are unconnected with them and disinterested. Their evidence shows that the truck was coming in high speed from the opposite direction, that one of its head-lights was not working, that the driver did not blow any horn, that there was a heap of stones stacked on the road on the left side of the rickshaw, that the rickshaw was on the extreme end of the road and yet the truck came and collided against the rickshaw with the result that Aloka Niyogi and Champa Banerjee were thrown on the road to the right side of the rickshaw and the boy Abhijit was thro