1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the impugned Award dated 25.7.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Barabanki in Motor Accident Claim Case No.70 of 2000. Hence both the appeals are decided by this present common judgment.

2. F.A.F.O. No.479/2001 has been preferred by the owners against the Motor Accident Claims Petition No.70/2000, decided by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barabanki by the order dated 25.7.2001 whereas, the F.A.F.O. No.508/2001, has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

3. Brief facts of the case are, one Shrawan Kumar aged about six years, son of the claimant, met with an accident with an Ambassador Car No.UMT-289 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and as a result thereof, Shrawan Kumar succumbed to injuries. Claimant approached the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for compensation.

4. The defence taken is that the Ambassador Car No.UMT No.289 which met the accident, was not insured by the respondent New India Assurance Company. Otherwise also, the driver of the car was not possessing valid driving license hence, respondent New India Assurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. At the time of accident the age of the deceased was about 6 years. The Tribunal framed following issue for adjudication:

1. Whether, deceased Shrawan Kumar succumbed to injuries on account of accident occurred with the Ambassador Car No.UMT-289, driven by its driver rashly and negligently on 29.3.2000 at about 5:30 p.m. at Dundpurwa Baki Road, village Ganaura, Police Station Jahangirabad District Barabanki ?

2. Whether the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador Car No.UMT-289 by its driver?

3. Whether, the Ambassador Car No.UMT-289 was insured by the respondent New India Assurance Company, in case, yes, then its effect?

4. Whether, the driver of the Ambassador Car No.UMT-289 was not possessing any valid and effective driving license, in case yes, then its effect?

5. Whether, the claimants are entitled to compensation, in case yes, then what shall be the quantum of compensation?

5. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses appeared. PW-1 is the claimant himself and one Sushil Kumar as PW-2. Copy of chargesheet, post mortem report and First Information Report was also filed as documentary evidence.

6. On behalf of respondent, no documentary evidence was filed. However, defendant No.2 Ayodhya Prasad, owner of vehicle himself is DW-1. Copy of driving license, registered certificates were filed at later stage.

7. The Tribunal recorded finding that deceased Shrawan Kumar succumbed to injuries on account of accident occurred with the Ambassador Car No.UMT-289 on 29.3.2000 at about 5:30 p.m. on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. The deceased was survived by his father, mother and sister. PW-2 Sushil Kumar eyewitness, stated that at the time of accident, he was sitting in the nearby shop and noticed that the car was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver resulting in the accident. He was sitting at a distance of about 10-15 paces from the place of occurrence.

8. DW-1 Ayodhya Prasad, owner of the vehicle, admitted that the accident had occurred on 29.3.2000 at about 5:30 p.m., and on account of said accident, the deceased Shrawan Kumar, aged about 6 years, succumbed to injuries. The vehicle was being driven by Jitendra Kumar who happens to be the son of the owner. The Tribunal on the basis of admitted evidence on record, held that the accident had occurred on aforesaid date, time and place because of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver Jitendra Kumar whereby, Shrawan Kumar succumbed to injuries. However, Tribunal recorded a finding that Jitendra Kumar was not having valid driving licence. The driving license was valid only upto 21.6.1997. Copy of the driving license filed, does not reveal the name of the Licensing Auth