( 1 ) THE parents of the deceased boy, aged 13 years have filed a claim petition. The learned Trial Court awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the death of her son, aged 13 years.

( 2 ) FEELING aggrieved the parents have filed this appeal.

( 3 ) FIRST the facts in brief: The deceased Prashant Tyagi @ Vickky was going from village Hastsal to Mohan Nagar on 7. 7. 94 along with his sister, Preeti in a maruti Car bearing No. DL-5c-5877. The deceased was sitting on the front seat whereas Preeti was sitting on the back seat. The car was being driven by Ajay Tyagi. A truck bearing registration No. UP-80-9651 was going ahead the Maruti car. When the car was moving in front of Radhu Cinema at about 8. 20 p. m. the truck driver stopped his truck. Ajay Tyagi also stopped his car. But the DTC bus bearing DLP 220 moving behind the car and driven by one, Madanlal, respondent No. 2 did not stop the bus in time and hit the Maruti car from behind with a great force. The Maruti car was crushed between the truck and the offending DTC bus. The deceased, prashant Tyagi sustained grievous injuries. Ajay Tyagi and Preeti sustained injuries. Prashant Tyagi was taken to G. T. B. Hospital but he could not survive and died before he could reach the hospital.

( 4 ) IT is submitted that the deceased was studying in 9th standard in Janta Inter college, Kharkhoda, District Meerut. He was stated to be a brilliant student and secured high marks. The father of the deceased is Managing Director of Sadhan sehkari Samiti, Mawana. The parents accepted that if the deceased had not expired he would have reached the pinnacle of his career. All the hopes of the appellant had been shattered on account of the death of their son. On the basis of the longevity in the family of over 70 years he would have lived for a long time.

( 5 ) THE case of the respondent/dtc was that the driver, respondent No. 2 was wrongly challaned by the police and he was con testing the same in the Court of law. It was denied that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the DTC driver. Instead it took place on account of negligence on the part of the truck driver and the car driver. It is claimed that the truck stopped all of a sudden in the middle of the road as a result the driver of the Maruti car could not stop his vehicle in time and hit the truck from behind. The DTC driver immediately applied the break, but being a heavy vehicle and short distance, the bus came in touch with the car. It is further claimed that the persons who witnessed the accident stated that the truck driver had applied the brakes in the middle of the road at the instance of Home Guard.

( 6 ) THE learned Tribunal after considering the evidence led, including the admission of RW-1, Madan Lal, held that the deceased died due to the injuries suffered by him on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by respondent No. 2, Madan Lal. It also held the DTC liable to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- with 9% interest.

( 7 ) THE grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in a death case was not justified. He relied upon General Manager, KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas, I (1994) ACC 346 (SC)=1994 ACJ 993.

( 8 ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the appellants and despite the directions that in case the matter is not argued today by the learned Counsel for the respondent, orders might be passed. Learned Counsel for the respondent has not appeared.

( 9 ) THE deceased was studying in Janta Inter College in 9th standard. He was said to be a brilliant student. Father of the deceased is the Managing Director of sadhan Sehkari Samiti, Mawana. He was in a position to provide best education to his son.

( 10 ) AS regards negligence, it would be worthwhile to note the admissions made by respondent No. 2, Madan Lal, in his statement. It would be worthwhile to briefly refer to the statement of PW-1, Ajay Tyagi. He stated that on