Certified copies of public documents, such as the challan, First Information Report, Naksha Mauka, Halat Mauka, and Postmortem Report, are admissible in evidence even in the absence of the statements of the eye witnesses or the police personnel who had prepared them.

1. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has been filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle challenging judgment and award dated 10.01.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur - camp - Deedwana ('the Tribunal').

2. On behalf of the claimants a cross objection under Order 41, Rule 22 CPC has been filed seeking enhancement of the compensation.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents, who are father, mother and brother of Surendra filed a claim petition on 27.01.1994 before the Tribunal with the averments that on 20.09.1993 at about 10:00 AM on private road from Sikar to Deedwana one Bus No.RJV 2674 reached village Lalasari when Surendra, aged about five years, while going to school was hit by the said offending bus, which crushed him. As a result of which, Surendra died on the spot. Allegations were made that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver Om Prakash, so also, the bus was driven on extreme right side of the road and Surendra who was going on correct side of the road was killed. Further averments were made about the family background of deceased Surendra and a compensation of Rs. 13,60,500/- was demanded.

4. The claim petition was resisted by the owner and driver by filing reply and the averments made in the claim petition were denied.

5. The Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of claimants AW-1 Deen Dayal and AW-2 Murari Joshi were examined and on behalf of the respondents NAW Bhagwana Ram was examined. The claimants exhibited 18 documents including Final Report, FIR, Spot Map, Postmortem Report etc. The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver Om Prakash and considered the monthly future income of deceased Surendra at Rs. 2,000/- and adopted multiplier of six and after deducing ⅓rd amount for personal expenses awarded Rs. 96,000/-. For loss of consortium a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded and Rs. 500/- was awarded as funeral expenses and in total a sum of Rs. 1,01,500/- was awarded.

6. Questioning the award impugned, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding of rash and negligent driving by the Tribunal is ex facie incorrect. Both the witnesses produced by the claimants were not present at the site of accident and their evidence was based on hearsay and, therefore, the same was wholly inadmissible. It was further submitted that the documentary evidence also could not be taken into consideration as no one who had prepared the said documents were examined by the claimants and, therefore, the said documents remained without any proof. It was further submitted that it was a case of no evidence and the claimants were at best entitled to a claim under Section 140 of the Act and nothing more. The claim made by the respondents in the cross objection was also refuted. It was stated that the deceased was only five years old and there are so many uncertainties in life, therefore, the claim cannot be made by merely speculating on the future possibilities. Ultimately, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and cross objection be dismissed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the award on the findings recorded by the Tribunal on rash and negligent driving. It was submitted that though both the witnesses were not eye witness to the accident, still the documents, which were prepared by the Police at the spot of accident alongwith the photographs clearly proves the rash and negligent driving on part of the driver of the offending vehicle, inasmuch as, from the said documents it is apparent that the bus was being plied on right side of the road and the deceased child, who was going on foot on the correct left side was struck by the said offending vehicle, which clearly proves the rash and negligent driving. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded quite a meager amount on account of