Child aged 6 years if can be held guilty for contributory negligence.

JUDGMENT :- These appeals arise out of an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The parents of the deceased, who have been awarded compensation have filed C.M.A. No.809 of 1982, challenging the finding that the deceased also contributed to the accident and also seek enhancement of compensation together with interest, while the owner of the vehicle has filed A.A.O. No.1103 of 1988, contending that a higher amount should have been deducted, for the negligence contributed by the deceased.

2. Facts briefly are: On 10-7-1980, Balasubramaniam, son of the appellants in C.M.A. No.809 of 1982, aged 6 years and 9 months at the time of his death was knocked down by a taxi bearing registration No. MDY 9599 belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent and driven by the third respondent. Balasubramaniam sustained serious injuries and succumbed them soon after. The vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The appellants filed M.C.O.P. No.243 of 1980 under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Salem, claiming a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.

3. The respondents resisted the claim alleging, that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the third respondent but was due to the negligence of the deceased boy. The claim was also excessive.

4. Before the Tribunal, the first appellant examined himself as P. W. 1 and examined an eye-witness to the occurrence as P.W. 2. They had exhibits A.1 to A.9 marked on their side. The respondents had no evidence to offer, either oral or documentary. On the above evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident was due to the negligence of both the third respondent as well as the deceased boy. The Tribunal did not fix the percentage of contribution of each. Regarding the compensation, the Tribunal assessed the sum at Rs. 8,000/- deducted the sum of Rs. 2,000/- for the negligence contributed by the deceased boy and passed an Award in favour of the appellants for the remaining sum of Rs. 6,000/-. Aggrieved with the findings, these appeals have been filed.

5. Thiru T. Somasundaram, learned counsel for the appellants (ranking of parties as in C.M.A. NO. 809 of 1982) challenged the Award on the following grounds: (1) the finding that the deceased also had contributed, the accident was against law and the facts of the case. A deduction of Rs. 2,000/-, therefore, ought not to have, been made; (2) the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate; (3) The Tribunal had not awarded interest for the compensation. The same should be allowed.

6-7. Thiru N. Rosi Naidu, learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents and Thiru V. Narayanaswamy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent met the above contentions with reference to the facts of the case, and relied, upon certain decisions, which I shall refer to the course of the discussion.

Contention No.1

8. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the deceased was aged six years and nine months and was too young to be capable of contributing negligence to the accident. The Tribunal having found that the third respondent had been guilty of rash and negligent driving, culpability ought not to have been attributed to the boy aged 6 years.

8A. For a better appreciation of the legal issue involved, I shall first refer to the circumstances under which and the manner in which, the accident had taken place. The accident had occurred in an east to west road. It was a straight road. The deceased and his elder sister Porkodi, were returning from school in a cart. Near the scene of occurrence, both of them got down from the cart on the southern side of the road. Their house was on the northern side of the road. Both of them tried to cross the road, when the Ambassador car driven by the third respondent came from the east, knocked against the boy, threw him off and came t