S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J.

1. The appellant, who is the father of the deceased, has moved this court being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh, in Misc. Case No. 7 of 1988.

2. Tribhuwan Sao, the deceased at the relevant time, was a khalasi (cleaner) of Jonga jeep bearing registration No. BRO 2455. The Jonga jeep met with an accident while going towards Barhi side with a truck bearing registration No. BHM 9545. Due to impact of the accident Tribhuwan Sao fell down on the road and was crushed under the wheel of the truck, as a result of which he died on the spot.

3. In the claim petition it was alleged that the said accident occurred due to excessive and sudden speed of the said truck bearing registration No. BHM 9545. The income of the deceased was said to be Rs. 1,000.00 per month from his service. The claimant and his family were dependent on the earnings of the deceased and at the time of death the deceased was aged about 18-19 years.

4. Being noticed, the owner of the truck bearing registration No. BHM 9545 as well as the insurance company appeared and filed their separate written statements. Plea taken by the owner was that he was not liable to pay the compensation and liability, if any, was against the insurer and the driver. The insurance company took the plea that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the aforesaid Jonga jeep which was overloaded and was being driven negligently.

5. On such plea being taken, the Claims Tribunal framed several issues and after considering the evidence allowed the claim and held that the appellant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 42,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim, i.e., 5.2.1988 from the insurance company. The claimant not being satisfied with this amount of compensation has filed the instant appeal.

6. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the amount of compensation is grossly under-assessed by the Tribunal inasmuch as the Tribunal without considering any evidence has come to a conclusion that the deceased being khalasi of the Jonga jeep could not have earned Rs. 1,000.00 per month. Secondly, it is contended that the Tribunal while granting compensation did not take into consideration the future prospects of the deceased, the nature of mental shock and agony of the dependants. It is further contended that the Tribunal erroneously has not considered the income of the deceased from the cultivation which is Rs. 500.00 per month. Lastly, it is submitted that without any basis the Tribunal has deducted 40 per cent from the total compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that before awarding compensation in a claim case certain factors have to be considered which, in the instant case, has not been done. He has relied for such submission on the decisions in Manjushri Raha V/s. B.L. Gupta 1977 ACJ 134 (SC), S. Chandra V/s. Pallavan Transport Corporation 1995 ACJ 1170 (SC) and Hardeo Kaur V/s. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation, 1992 0 ACJ 300.

7. Mrs. Jaya Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the truck, has, on the other hand, submitted that no document was filed by the claimant to show that the earning of the deceased was Rs. 1,000.00 per month. Further, it is contended that the owner of the truck cannot be held liable for the payment of compensation in view of the fact that the insurance company is liable for compensation up to the limit of Rs. 1,50,000.00 in view of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1982.

8. Mr. M.Y. Eqbal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company, on the other hand, has drawn my attention to a decision reported in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V/s. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) and has submitted that after analysing the decisions of the several