JUDGMENT : M.M. Dutt, J.—This appeal is at the instance of the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited and it is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Calcutta. 2. It appears that on September, 13, 1970 at about 2.30 p.m., the minor son of the respondent No. 1, aged about 9, was knocked down by a private car belonging to the United Nations International Children's Education Fund (UNICEF), while the boy was standing on the footpath of Ritchie Road and was about to cross the road to go on to the other side. The boy had suffered bleeding injuries all over the body and had to be removed to the hospital. He was also treated by some physicians including Dr. R.N. Chatterjee, M. S. The respondent No. 1, who is the father of the boy, made an application u/s 110-A (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, praying for payment of compensation assessed at Rs. 20,000/-. The application was opposed by the insurer of the vehicle, namely, the appellant, denying its liability to pay. Further, it was alleged that at the material time the boy had been actually crossing the road running, but as he fell down he was run over by the vehicle. 3. The learned Tribunal came to the finding that the car was driven in a rash and negligent manner which brought about the accident. He held that the boy was not guilty of contributory negligence. After considering the injury and other circumstances, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 13,000/- on account of compensation. Hence this appeal. 4. Mr. Nihar Ranjan Majumdar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued two points in support of the appeal. The first point that has been furged by him relates to the maintainability o the application u/s 110-A (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is contended by him that as the application was made by the father and not on behalf of h is minor son, it was not maintainable. This contention has no substance. It has been clearly stated in the preamble to the application that it is made by the father as the natural guardian of the minor. In the circumstances, the application in our view, was quite maintainable. 5. This contention has no substance. It has been clearly stated in the preamble to the application that it is made by the father as the natural guardian of the minor. In the circumstances, the application in our view, was quite maintainable. 5. The next point that has been urged on behalf of the appellant relates to the question of negligence of the driver resulting in the accident. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the driver of the vehicle was guilty of negligence is not justified by the evidence on record. This contention also, in our opinion, has no merit. The boy has been examined in the case and his evidence, as stated in the examination-in-chief, is that the car came from north and knocked him down when he was standing for crossing the Ritchie Road and to go over to the park on the other side. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was waiting on the footpath as the car was coming, and that the car mounted the footpath and knocked him down. Throughout his evidence he maintained that he was knocked down by the car while he was standing on the footpath. The next eye-witness is P.W. 5, an Advocate. His evidence is that the boy was about to step down from the eastern side of the footpath. The car was coming at a high speed and as the driver applied the brake, sharply, there was a sound and it swerved to the left and dashed the boy who sustained head injury etc. Again he said that the boy was knocked down on the eastern footpath of the Ritchie Road and the boy was not crossing and recrossing the road on the eve of the accident. In his cross-examination he said that the boy was thrown on the footpath from the road. His evidence, considered as a whole, comes to this that the boy was about to step down on the road from the footpath when he was knocked down by the vehicle concerned and he was thrown on the footpath from the road. In his cross-examination he said that the boy was thrown on the footpath from the road. His evidence, considered as a whole, comes to this that the boy was about to step down on the road from the footpath when he was knocked down by the vehicle concerned and he was thrown on the footpath from the road. The driver who is D.W. 1 has no doubt denied that the boy was standing on the footpath and stated that he was crossing the road when he was knocked down, but we are of the view that both the boy and P.W. 5 told the truth. There is no reason why should we disbelieve a boy aged about 14 at the time of his deposition and also P.W. 5 who is an Advocate and a quite disinterested person. The evidence of these witnesses disclose that the driver was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and in knocking down the boy. In these circumstances, we do not think that there is any substance in the contention of the appellant in this regard. 6. These are the only two points which have been urged before us. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has not challenged before us the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed with costs. Sharma, J. 8. I agree.