( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act from an award of Rs. 20,000/-made against the appellants by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Rewa.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are that Munna, the respondent, suffered bodily injuries on november 9, 1962 by the impact of a truck which was driven by the appellant No. 2 Munnilal Gupta. The truck was owned by the appellant No. 1 Bishwanath Gupta and was insured with the appellant No. 3, the New India General Insurance company. The accident took place at about 4. 30 p. m. on the main market road of harpalpur. The road runs from west to east through the market and on each side of the road are houses. The house of Munna is on the light side of the road. The truck was moving from west to east. Munna was hit in front of his house by the truck. As a result of the impact, Munna suffered serious Injuries on his left leg. The flesh and skin were peeled off and bones became visible. He was first locally treated and then was removed to Chhatarpur hospital where he remained for about twenty days. Thereafter, he was removed to Gwalior for treatment where he was treated in Kamla Raje Hospital from December 4, 1962 to March 29, 1963. The injury resulted in permanent deformity and disability of the left leg. We shall refer to it in more detail later. ( 3 ) AN application was made by Munna through his father as guardian claiming Rs. 30,000/- as damages on the ground that the accident took place because of the negligence of the driver. To this application, the appellants were impleaded as non-applicants. According to the case set up on behalf of Munna, he was playing on the right side of the road in front of his house and the truck came at a very high speed and the driver could not control it and Munna's left leg came under the left front wheel of the truck. In answer to this case, the appellants pleaded that munna, along with some other children, was playing on the left side of the road; the truck was coming at a reasonable speed when suddenly Munna crossed the road; the driver tried to avoid the accident and swerved the truck from the left to the right side of the road, but in spite of all care. Munna received an impact from back portion of the truck as a result of which he suffered injuries. The Tribunal accepted the version of the accident given on behalf of Munna. It also held that even on the facts pleaded by the appellants, there was negligence. The damages were assessed at Rs. 20,000/ -.

( 4 ) THE respondent's version of the case is supported by Omprakash Agarwal (P. W. 3), Ramsahay (P. W. 4), the father of the respondent and Ramlal (P. W. 6), the uncle of the respondent. It was accepted by Omprakash Agarwal (P. W. 3) that there is a turning on the road 40 to 50 yards behind the place of the accident and a railway crossing 60 yards ahead. The road, as already stated, runs through a market. In these circumstances, it is not believable that the truck came at a speed of 50 miles per hour and ran over the child while he was playing in front of his house on the right side of the road. It is more reasonable to accept the version as given by the appellants. The appellants examined the driver Munnilal as (D. W. 2)and another person who was sitting on the front seat with him, namely, badriprasad (D. W. 1 ). According to the statements of these witnesses, the respondent Munna along with some other children of his age was playing on the left side of the road. Seeing the truck and after the horn was blown, some children crossed the road. Munna remained on the left side, but when horn was blown again, he too suddenly crossed the road. The driver swerved the truck towards the right, but could not avoid the accident and Munna was injured by the impact of the truck. These witnesses also stated that Munna collided with the hind portion of the truck. This part of the evidence is not believable, for as deposed by the witnesses for the respondent, the child was actually taken out