( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order passed by the Claims Tribunal, Indore, awarding compensation in respect of the death of one Anilkumar, the eldest son of respondent No. 1, in a motor accident. This appeal is filed by the two appellants, one being the owner of the truck with which the accident occurred and the other the insurance company with which the said vehicle was insured. The driver of the truck has been joined as respondent No. 2.

( 2 ) THE applicant-respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Claims Tribunal, indore, alleging that on 30th May 1963, at about 6. 30 P. M. , his son Anilkumar, aged 13 years, was going on a bicycle from east to west on the road which runs on the southern side of Pagnis-Paiga Municipal Garden, Indore, Truck No. MPE 6888, which was then being driven by the respondent-Shantilal alias Sampatlal, came from the south and was moving towards the north on the road which meets the road on which Anilkumar was proceeding. When at the cross-roads Anilkumar, on his bicycle, had hardly entered the crossing to turn towards the south that he met with an accident by the aforesaid truck. The front bumper of the truck struck anilkumar down and he was run over. As a result of this accident, Anilkumar died on the spot instantaneously.

( 3 ) IT was alleged by the respondent-applicant that the truck had no horn as its electric horn was out of order and the truck was not fitted with a rubber-bulb horn, and that, therefore, before entering the cross-roads no horn was blown. It was further alleged that the road on which the truck was moving was closed for heavy vehicular traffic as the area was such where schools of small children were situated; that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver; and that the truck was not in a fit condition owing to various reasons mentioned in the application. The respondent-applicant joined in his application the owner of the truck, its driver and the insurance company as non-applicants Nos. 1, 9 and 10 respectively. In addition, the applicant also joined non-applicants Nos. 2 to 8, who were alleged to be the financiers of M/s. 'enterprise' of Indore. It was also alleged in the application that the deceased anilkumar, who was the sop of the respondent-applicant, was thirteen years old at the time of the accidents and that he had a brilliant career throughout and had appeared for the Middle School Examination and in the result, which came on the next day of his death, he was declared to have passed in First Class. Anilkumar was the eldest son of the respondent-applicant, and on this basis compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- was claimed by the respondent-applicant.

( 4 ) THE insurance company, the driver of the truck and the non-applicants Nos. 2 to 8 in the petition filed their written-statements. In their written statements they contested all the allegations made in the petition. The owner of the truck, who was non-applicant No. 1 in the petition and is one of the appellants in the present appeal, did not file any written-statement.

( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle; and consequently awarded to the respondent-applicant compensation amounting to Rs. 19,500/ -. As the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, and the third-party risk covered under the policy was upto the extent of Rs. 20,000/-, the Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation to the extent of their liability in accordance with the terms of the policy. It is against this order of the Tribunal that the present appeal has been preferred by the owner of the truck and the insurance company.

( 6 ) SHRI Jhanvar, learned counsel for the appellants, raised three contentions before us. The first was that the respondent-applicant being the father of the deceased was not a "legal representative" of the deceased within th