The court applied the principles of negligence and the duty of care owed by drivers to pedestrians, especially children, in determining that the boy was not contributorily negligent and that the compensation awarded was not excessive.

K. B. PANDA, J.

( 1 ) ON 6-11-66 a boy aged about 7-8 years named Babula Bhoi studying in class I of Gopalpur, U. P. School, met with a truck accident as a result of which he received multiple injuries. The skin and the flesh of the two thighs were ripped open and the bone of the right thigh was fractured. In a senseless condition he was admitted into the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack where he remained in that unconscious state for certain days. In course of the treatment the injured developed various complications, ran high temperature which persisted, the fracture was plastered with screws, and finally he was discharged on 4-1-67. At that time he had not fully recovered and the plasters were still on. His father (P. W. 1) laid a claim for Rs. 16,000 as compensation impleading the owner of the truck (opposite party No. 1) and the Insurance Company (opposite party No. 2)with whom the vehicle bearing No. ORP 1292, a Bedford truck, belonging to opposite party No. 1 had been insured. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) granted a compensation of Rs. 10,530 on 25-8-70 making opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable for the same. It also ordered future interest at six per cent till the date of payment of the sum granted under the award.

( 2 ) AS against this award of compensation, opposite party No. 1, the owner, has filed Misc. Appeal No. 179/70, and opposite party No. 2, the Insurance Company, has filed Misc. Appeal No. 185/ 70. Both the appeals are heard analogous and this judgment will bind both the appeals.

( 3 ) THE facts admitted are as follows : the injured boy was proceeding from village Gopalpur towards Cuttack, and the truck in question was also coming from the same direction from para-dip side towards Cuttack. Village Gopalpur is at a distance of 24 miles from Cuttack towards Paradip. Near Gopalpur crossing some repair work of the road was going on, for which a machine roller was there. The time of accident is in between 2-2. 1/2 P. M. in the broad day light. Admittedly the boy in consequence of the accident was thrown off with multiple injuries for which he had to be hospitalised and treated as an indoor patient. Even when he was discharged on 1-4-67 he had not recovered. During his treatment in the hospital, the husband of P. W. 1 had, on some occasions, come and seen the injured boy and had given some medicine. The father of the injured boy is not a rich man, but a labourer.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the claimant's case, the vehicle came with high speed without blowing horn and dashed against the boy who was proceeding on the left side of the road. After causing the accident it did not stop but drove fast and had to be stopped by the villagers at a distance of about a quarter mile. The injured boy in an unconscious state was removed first to a local dispensary, but thereafter to the s. C. B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack, for treatment. The evidence of the doctor is that the boy has become permanently crippled.

( 5 ) THE defence of opposite party No. 1, the owner of the truck, was vari- cms. However, for the purpose of the appeal it may be stated that according to the claimant the boy was coming up the elevation of the road as if blindly and dashed against the moving truck towards its rear part and received the injuries. By that time, according to opposite party No. 1, the cabin of the driver had passed and so he was not in a position to know the approach of the boy, who had a head-long clash with the moving vehicle towards its rear wheels. As such her case was that there was contributory negligence and whatever had happened to the boy was of his own making for which he, nor the driver, was liable. The case of opposite party No. 2 was substantially that since the owner was not liable, the insurer was consequently not liable.

( 6 ) THERE are four witnesses for the claimant of whom P. W. 1 is the father of the injured boy; P. W. 2 is the docto