JUDGMENT 1. - By this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doongarpur dated 16.9.1997, passed in Motor Accident Claims Case No. of 1996 whereby, the learned Tribunal has made an award of Rs. 2,15,000/-, along with interest, for the personal injuries suffered by the respondent No. 1, in the motor accident dated 29.10.1995. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.10.1995, at about 12.00 p.m., the claimant aged five years, was hit by the appellant's delinquent bus, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the defendant No. 2, as a result of which, the victim suffered injury on the head. He was taken for treatment to Galiakot, Sagwada and Ahmadabad. The matter was reported to police, who after investigation filed the challan against the driver. According to the claimant, as a result of the injuries, the speech has been impaired, the entire right part of his body has been rendered invalid, and thus, he has become permanently disabled. The victim is claimed to be the only son of his parents, as the parents have already undergone the Family Planning Operation. A total sum of Rs. 6,00,0001- was claimed as compensation. 3. The appellant in its reply contended that the driver was driving the vehicle with a controlled speed, and the victim suddenly appeared on the road while playing. All attempts were made to save him and, therefore, the is victim could survive, otherwise he would died. It was also contended that the father of the victim, realising mistake of the child, allowed the driver to go away from the place of accident, and thereafter, the report was lodged and challan was got filed. The amount claimed was also contended to be exaggerated. 4. The learned Tribunal framed three issues. First related to the negligence, second related to the question about the driver being working in the employment of the appellant, and the third related to the quantum, so also as to from whom, the claimant is entitled to get compensation. 5. The claimant examined PW-1 Salma, the mother, PW-2, an eye-witness, and PW-3, the Doctor, and also produced various documents including Family Planning Operation Certificate, permanent disablement certificate, medical bills etc. 6. 5. The claimant examined PW-1 Salma, the mother, PW-2, an eye-witness, and PW-3, the Doctor, and also produced various documents including Family Planning Operation Certificate, permanent disablement certificate, medical bills etc. 6. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence of PW-1 and 2, found that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the defendant No. 1, wherein the claimant received injuries. No controversy was raised on issue No. 2. Deciding No. 3, the learned Tribunal found claimant to be entitled for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- for medical expenditure and journey, so also found that on account of the accident to claimant's entire right side is paralysed, so also that the claimant cannot walk, and thus has permanently become invalid, and looking to his age, considering the fact that through out the life adequate care is required, he was found entitled to Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries. Then the claimant was held entitled to another sum of Rs. 12,000/- for the other mental pain and agony and future difficulties. This is how the claimant was held entitled to a total sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- by way of compensation. 7. Assailing the impugned award, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has erred in deciding issues No. 1 and 3. It is contended that no negligence was at all the attributed to the driver for causing the accident, and in any case, the victim had substantially contributed in happening of the accident. Regarding quantum, also it was contended that the victim was not an earning member, and looking to the family status, the award is disproportionately excessive. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant has supported the impugned award. 9. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the record. 10. A look at the statement of PW-1, would show that she has clearly deposed that the accident occurred in front of her house, wherein her son, claimant, has received head injury, as he was hit by the appellant's bus. She has deposed that the victim was run over by the bus. She has also deposed that the victim was taken to Sagwada and Ahmadabad Hospitals for treatment, and in Ahmadabad, he was treated for two months, the claimant's father and his grant parents also remained there to take care. She has deposed that the victim was run over by the bus. She has also deposed that the victim was taken to Sagwada and Ahmadabad Hospitals for treatment, and in Ahmadabad, he was treated for two months, the claimant's father and his grant parents also remained there to take care. She has also deposed that on account of the injury, one side of the body has been completely invalided; the victim cannot move or eat. The victim is deposed to be the only son. She has also deposed to have incurred an expenditure of Rs. 20,000/- in medical treatment, and another 20,000/- rupees by way of incidental expenses of the attendants, and claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as to compensation for permanent invalidity. She further claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for future maintenance of the victim, and of another Rs. 2,00,000/-for mental pain and agony suffered by them. 11. In cross-examination, she has denied the allegation about the victim to have run away on the road for playing, on account of which the accident may have occurred. She has also deposed that the bus stopped only on the cry being raised, and by being run over by the bus, the victim suffered paralysis immediately after accident. His one hand and leg have become permanently incurably invalid, for which, medical certificate has been given. In Sagwada, the victim was examined by the Medical Board, and all the three members of the Board were unanimously of the opinion that the paralysis was the result of the injuries suffered in the accident. 12. Coming to the statement of PW-2, he is a neighbour of the victim. He has deposed that he was returning after playing cricket, at that time, the bus came at a fast speed, victim was going to his house moving slowly, and was hit by the bus, as a result of which, the victim suffered head injury, which accident was seen by him. He has also corroborated the victim to have been taken to Sagwada and Ahmadabad. and the victim to have suffered paralysis on account of the injury. On being cross- examined, he has deposed that the bus had moved ahead, and was stopped only on their raising cry. Nothing more or material has been suggested to the witness to discredit his version. 13. and the victim to have suffered paralysis on account of the injury. On being cross- examined, he has deposed that the bus had moved ahead, and was stopped only on their raising cry. Nothing more or material has been suggested to the witness to discredit his version. 13. I may at this stage read the statement of Doctor PW-3, who was one of the members of the Medical Board, which had examined the victim. He has deposed that the other members were the Dr. H.S. Fauzdar, Senior Specialist Surgery, and Dr. Ravindra Mehta, M.D. According to him, the whole Boa/c found that the victim's both lower limbs have been paralysed and right upper portion was also paralysed, on account of the head injury. He has proved permanent disablement certificate, Ex.9. He was cross-examined at length, but nothing material could be brought on record to discredit his 14. The defendants have not led any evidence whatever. 15. Thus, from the evidence of the PW-1 & 2, it is abundantly clear that, the accident occurred on account of the negligent driving by the driver of the delinquent bus. It is not established at all, whether by cross-examination of the NO witnesses, or by leading any positive evidence, that the victim suddenly appeared on the road, in circumstances where under the accident could not be avoided, so as to hold that accident was result of sole negligence of the victim, or that the victim in any manner contributed in happening of the accident. The accident has occurred outside the house of the victim, and it can naturally be expected that any child from the house so may come out from the house, obviously on the road. In those circumstances, when the vehicle was passing through the inhabited area, the driver was supposed to be slow, rather more careful, and should have been able to comprehend the contingency of the inmates of the house coming outside the house. Significantly even the driver himself could not muster the courage to appear in the witness-box, and depose about the circumstances wherein. the accident occurred as per the stand taken by him in defence. In that view of the matter. it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal was in error in deciding issue No. 1 16. Significantly even the driver himself could not muster the courage to appear in the witness-box, and depose about the circumstances wherein. the accident occurred as per the stand taken by him in defence. In that view of the matter. it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal was in error in deciding issue No. 1 16. Coming to issue No. 3, it is true that the victim was not earning anything, but then, in view of the statement of PW-1, and the certificate Ex.1, to it can very well be said that the victim was the only son, and it is also clear that the father of the victim had already undergone Family Planning Operation, with the result that he could not be blessed with any more children. The certificate is of the year 1993, and the accident is of the year 1995. Likewise, it is also clearly established that the victim was only five years of age at the time of accident, and has become permanently and incurably invalid. 17. In these circumstances, the miseries of the claimant, and his parents are writ large, the claimant will have to suffer the physical inconvenience of invalidity, and the ignominy of the entire rest of the life, and will have to be provided physical, mental and moral support throughout his life. In that view of the matter, the all told award of compensation made at a figure of Rs. 2,00,000/- 12,000/- can hardly be said to be excessive, rather it can better be said to be substantially inadequate. 18. Thus, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court committed any error in deciding the issue No. 3, so as to require interference in favour of the appellant. 19. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has not ordered adjustment of the amount paid by the appellant in compliance of the no fault award', to this, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that, as a matter of fact, nothing was paid to the claimants under section 140. and if the appellant is able to show any payment to have been made, that obviously shall be adjusted. 20. and if the appellant is able to show any payment to have been made, that obviously shall be adjusted. 20. Therefore, it is clarified that if the appellant is able to show to the Tribunal, about having paid any compensation under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant will be entitled to have the amount adjusted in the award made by the learned Tribunal. 21. The appeal has thus no force, and is accordingly dismissed with the above observations and directions. 22. The parties shall bear their own costs. *******