The main legal point established is the duty of a driver to exercise reasonable care, particularly in areas where children may be present, and the consideration of the standard of care for children in determining negligence.

1. - This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 filed by the claimants, who were the father and mother respectively of the deceased Gyan Chand, who was going on 27.6.1984 from village Gurdhanpura to Pragpura with his grand-uncle by Jonga jeep, against the award dated 21.1.1987 passed in Case No. 251 of 1984 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur.

2. When the deceased Gyan Chand, along with his grand-uncle, reached Pragpura and was crossing the road then suddenly Sant Lal came from Jaipur side by driving bus No. HRU 5944 with excessive speed having no control on the vehicle. He did not blow the horn and suddenly came on the wrong side of the road and hit the bus with the deceased Gyan Chand, who died on the spot due to serious injuries.

3. The appellants claimed Rs. 2,55,000/- as compensation on various grounds, the details of which are given below:

4. The respondents although admitted that the accident took place, but alleged that the death was caused due to the negligence of the deceased Gyan Chand and not that he was run over by the bus aforesaid.

5. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the appellants, out of which Rs. 15,000/- given by way of no fault liability were deducted. Aggrieved the appellants have filed the present appeal.

6. To prove the claim, the appellants produced Brij Mohan Lal, PW 1; Hariram, PW 2; Banshi, PW 3; who have stated that after getting down from the Jonga jeep the deceased Gyan Chand was crossing the road when all of a sudden bus No. HRU 5944 appeared at the scene and struck the deceased Gyan Chand towards his left as a result whereof Gyan Chand fell on the ground and died. The accident took place during day hours and in a busy locality. No evidence has been given by the respondents as to why the brakes could not be applied and bus stopped. From the evidence of the three witnesses produced by the appellants it appears that the bus was running at a high speed which was beyond the control of the driver, as a result of the same it struck the deceased Gyan Chand, who received serious injuries and died on the spot.

7. From these facts reckless and negligent driving of the bus by the driver was established. Sant Lal, the driver, did not exercise reason-able care while driving the bus on the date of accident. He was guilty of negligence as he did not use all such care and forethought as was expected of him. He was running the vehicle through a busy market and he could have realised that anyone could appear all of a sudden on the street and that it was his duty to save him. The argument of the respondent was that the deceased Gyan Chand should not have crossed the road at that time and, while doing so he should have been careful, as such he has to be held guilty of contributory negligence.

8. There is a difference between the test of negligence as applied to an act of adult and the act when committed by a child. The rule is that a child is only required to exercise that degree of care which the children of the same age ordinarily exercise in the same circumstances taking into account the experience, capacity and understanding of the child.

9. While driving a bus on the highway it is the duty of a driver to be careful as children can appear on the road who may not have the same understanding as a standard person. The deceased was 12 years of age and the manner in which the accident took place leaves no room for doubt that Sant Lal, driver, could have been more careful. The Tribunal rightly found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver.

10. The sum of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, however, appears to be less than the amount, the appellants were entitled to. The claim of the appellants was fo