The word "just" appearing in section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act has a wider ambit than the words used in sections 1(A) and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act and that the Claims Tribunal may apply the principles laid down in the decisions under the Fatal Accidents Act if they, in the opinion of the Tribunal, would serve as a proper measure of what is "just" compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.

( 1 ) THIS appeal and the cross-objections arise out of the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) awarding compensation of Rs. 6,000. 00 to the parents of a boy aged 5 years by name Kamal in respect of a motor accident which occurred on 26. 4. 64. The parents of the boy (who will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) filed a petition before the Tribunal under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 by way of compensation for the death of their boy who met with his death in the said accident. The claim was made against the owner of the car involved in the accident and the General Assurance Company with which the said car had been insured. They will be referred to hereinafter as the respondents. The respondents have filed the appeal against the award of compensation of Rs. 6,000. 00 and the petitioners have filed the cross-objections for enhancement of the compensation amount.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that on 26. 4. 1964 at about 4. 15 P. M. when their son Kamal was crossing the Ramjas Road opposite Sant Permanand Eye Hospital, Karol Bagh, Delhi, the car bearing registration No. DLF 2595 owned by the 1st respondent and driven by his driver came at a fast speed from the Original Road without the horn being sounded and knocked down the boy who was crossing the road. The boy came under the front right wheel of the car and met with serious injuries and died on the spot. The petitioner No. 1, who is the father of the deceased, was employed as senior draftsman in the National mineral Development Corporation at Faridabad and was drawing Rs. 325. 00 as basic salary besides allowances. According to the petitioners the deceased was a bright boy and the boy had very good prospects in life, and was expected to earn a decent living so as to be a source of financial assistance to his parents. They, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 as compensation.

( 3 ) THE application was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the accident occurred entirely due to the fault of the deceased as the boy having crossed the road suddenly turned back and hit the car and that the accident did not occur due to any negligence on the part of the driver. They also contested the petitioner s claim for compensation on the ground that it was excessive.

( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal framed the following issues :

"1. What is the effect of there being no allegation that the driver was driving the car at the time of accident under the employment or control of respondent No. 1 the owner ? 2. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car in question ? 3. Whether deceased was guilty of contributory negligence ? 4. To what amount if any, is the petitioner entitled ? 5. Relief. All the issues were held in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents and the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,000. 00.

( 5 ) THREE witnesses were examined by the petitioners to prove the manner in which the accident occurred. They are Public Witenss 2, Public Witness 3 and 4. One of them, Public Witness 3, is the resident of the house in front of which the accident is said to have occurred. All these witnesses stated that it was while the deceased was crossing the road that the car came at a fast speed from the Original Road and after taking the turning at the junction of the Original Road and Ramjas Road knocked down the deceased. They also stated that the driver of the car did not sound the horn before he took the turning. They denied the suggestion made on behalf of the respondents that the boy after crossing the road had suddenly turned back. The evidence of these witnesses is challenged on the ground that admittedly the car was stopped immediately after it had knocked down the boy and that the boy was actually found between right front wheel and the righ