( 1. ) THIS appeal by the claimants under Section 110d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the award dated December 20, 1977, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratlam, in Claim Case No. 7 of 1975.

( 2. ) THE material facts are as follows :

Claimant No. 1, Geetabai, is the widow of the deceased, Khimaji. Claimants No. 2 to 9 are the minor children of the deceased, Khimaji. Khimaji was a resident of village, Istagarkheda, Tehsil Alot District Ratlam. On June 8, 1975, Khimaji had gone to Ratlam to meet his relations. On that day, at 7. 45 p. m. when he was going on the road in front of the Government College, he was dashed against by a tempo bearing No. M. P. O. 3929 which was being driven by respondent No. 1, Husainkhan. Khimaji sustained serious injuries in the accident. He was admitted to the hospital. He succumbed to the injuries caused to him on June 13, 1975, in the hospital. Respondent No. 2, Mohammad Shan, was the registered owner of the said tempo on the date of the accident and it was insured with respondent No. 3, National Insurance Company Ltd. , in the name of Mohammad Shan. The claimants filed an application under Section 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 60,000 as compensation on account of the death of Khimaji. Their case was that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tempo by respondent No, 1 in the course of his employment with respondent No. 2 and, therefore, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

( 3. ) RESPONDENT No. 1 did not appear before the Tribunal and was proceeded with ex parte. Respondent No. 2 contested the claim on the ground that he had already sold the tempo to one Ujagarsingh and was not the owner of the tempo at the time of the accident. He also denied that respondent No. 1 was his employee and the accident was caused on account of the rashness and negligence of respondent No. 1 in driving the tempo. Respondent No. 3 also contested the claim on the ground that respondent No. 2 was not the owner of the tempo at the time of the accident. Both respondents Nos. 2 and 3 admitted that the tempo was insured with respondent No. 3 in the name of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 4, Ujagarsingh, who was added as party to the application, subsequently contested the claim on the ground that he was not the owner of the tempo at the time of the accident and that respondent No. 1 was not his employee.

( 4. ) THE Tribunal held that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tempo by respondent No. 1 and, therefore, he was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal assessed Rs. 8,000 as compensation payable by respondent No. 1. The Tribunal further held that although respondent No. 2 was the registered owner of the tempo and it was also insured in his name with respondent No. 3, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants because respondent No. 1 was not the employee of respondent No. 2. The Tribunal further held that respondent No. 4 also was not the owner of the tempo at the time of the accident and, as such, was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal consequently passed an award directing respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000 to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till payment. The Tribunal dismissed the claim against respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

( 5. ) THE learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that respondents No. 2 and 3 were not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. He also contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and deserves to be suitably enhanced. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 supported the award of the Tribunal.

( 6. ) THE followi