This appeal relates to a claim for compensation instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents under the Fatal Accidents Act (Act 13 of 1855).

(2) On 17-11-1947, one Nalini Kanta Sarma while proceeding on the Assam Trunk Road from West to East was knocked down and run over from behind by a motor truck No. ASN. 382. The unfortunate man, as a result of the collision, receiv­ed serious injuries and the post mortem examina­tion showed amongst others that the upper part of the right half of the back and the contiguous part of the right parietal bone were fractured to pieces and there were also fractures of the 7th and 8th ribs of the right side at the level of angles. The left thigh bone was also completely fractured in the middle. The man fell in the drain on the left side of the road and died almost instan­taneously. The vehicle after passing over the poor victim swerved to the south and then turning to the north struck against a post and fell down in the road side ditch or 'nullah'. At the time of the accident, there were admittedly four occupants in the truck including the driver himself. This happened at about 12 or 12-30 P. M. in broad daylight when the Trunk Road was clear of traffic and there were no other vehicles in sight.

(3) The deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of his death. He was of good health and physique and in normal course, but for the fatal accident, would have survived many years longer. At the relevant time, he was earning about Rs. 87/- a month as a cashier in a Bank.

(4) Srimati Abhayabala Debi (plaintiff No. 1) is his widow, plaintiff No. 3 is their daughter and the other three plaintiffs are their sons. Apart from the mother, the other plaintiffs are all minor infants under the guardianship of the first plaintiff and their age ranges from one and a half to 7 years. They have claimed compensation for his death as representatives of the deceased. They aver that the death of Nalini Kanta was due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor lorry for which the defendants are liable to pay compensation.

(5) The defendants 1 and 2 were impleaded in the suit as registered owners of the above lorry while defendant No. 4 was impleaded as the driver thereof. It was alleged that this defendant, the driver, negligently allowed the defendant No. 3, the son of defendant No. 1, to drive the lorry when the accident happened. It was stated that defen­dants No. 3 and 4 were acting at" the relevant time as agents of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore all the defendants were liable. Defen­dants 6 and 7 are parents of the deceased. They are merely pro-forma defendants and have pre­ferred no claim of their own. After the institu­tion of the suit, the Insurance Company was im­pleaded as defendant No. 5 because the lorry in question happened to be insured with the said limited company under the Motor Vehicles Act.

(6) The defendants Nos. I to 3 filed a joint written statement in which they denied their liabi­lity to pay any compensation. They denied that at the time of the accident defendant No. 3 was driving the vehicle and they also disputed the quan­tum of compensation claimed. It is however signi­ficant that the written statement does not disclose as to who was actually driving the lorry at the time though in his deposition in Court Harbans Singh '(defendant No. 3) admitted that he was then in that lorry. The driver Janki Ram Sarma (defendant No. 4) in his written statement definitely stated that at the relevant time, Harbans was driving the lorry from Pandu to Gauhati. He ex­plained that in spite of his protest Harbans Singh, being the son of Nand Singh (defendant No. 1), the owner of the lorry, forcibly removed him from the driver's seat directing him to sit at the back and himself took charge of the driving. He stated that he being a mere employee was bound to obey Harbans Singh and had therefore no liability for any negligent act of the latter.

The Insurance Company has disputed the plain­tiffs' c