Judgment Dalip Singh, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is filed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur City in Motor Accident Claim No. 39/1991 dated 21.03.1995 which was filed by the appellants on account of the death of their son Master Kishan Singh who was aged 8 years at the time of accident. 3. The case of the claimants-appellants is that on 18.05.1991, the deceased met with an accident with a motor vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-25 M-0584 being driven by the respondent No. 2 Pitam Chand and owned by the respondent No. 1 Purshottam Lal and insured with respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company. 4. It is the case of the appellants that as a result of the accident, the deceased sustained injuries and died as a result of the aforesaid injuries which have been proved by the Post Mortem Report Exh. 4 dated 19.05.1991. 5. The learned Tribunal framed five issues. Issue No. 1 was with regard to whether the fact that motor-cycle bearing registration No. RJ-25 M-0584 was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the said motor-cycle and the driver caused the accident which resulted into the death of Kishan Singh S/o Ramroop. Learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 1 came to the conclusion that there was no direct evidence submitted on behalf of the claimants and whatever evidence was produced was in the nature of hearsay evidence and, as such, decided the issue No. 1 against the claimants. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has invited the attention of the Court to the statements of NAW-1 Pritam Chand Bansal and NAW-2 Prushottam Lal who are the driver and owner of the motorcycle respectively with which the alleged accident is said to have occurred on 18.05.1991. NAW-1 Pritam Chand Bansal has stated in his examination-in-chief as under:- "RJ-25 M-0584 motor cycle hamari thi. . . . . . Jis din ghatna ghati us din maine driving licence le rakha tha. . . . . . Us din motor cycle mai chala raha tha. Pitaji mere pichhe motor cycle par baithe thai. Meri galati se accident nahi huaa balki mratak ki galati se accident huaa." 6. In his cross examination, he has tried to reiterate the aforesaid statement by stating as under:-"Meri gaadi se accident nahi huaa. Maine pada dekha tha. . . . . . Us din motor cycle mai chala raha tha. Pitaji mere pichhe motor cycle par baithe thai. Meri galati se accident nahi huaa balki mratak ki galati se accident huaa." 6. In his cross examination, he has tried to reiterate the aforesaid statement by stating as under:-"Meri gaadi se accident nahi huaa. Maine pada dekha tha. Mujhe pata nahi accident kaisa huaa. Accident ki jagah Vajirpur se 3-4 Kilometre dur hogi. Phir mai mere pitaji ko lekar usi samay Hindon chala gaya. . . . .Parita se durghatna sthal karib 7 kilo metre dur hai." 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of NAW-2 Prushottam Lal who has stated as under:- "RJ-25 M-0584 meri motor cycle hai jiska registrtion mere naam hai. Us din Pitam Chand motor cycle chala raha tha. Dhimi gati se chala raha tha. Laparvahi se nahi chala raha tha. Uske pas driving licence tha. Uski galati se koi accident nahi huaa." 8. In the cross examination this witness has stated as under:-"Yah Kahna galat hai ki us din Pitam Chand motor cycle ko tej va laparvahi se chala raha ho. Yah Kahna galat hai ki us teji ki vajah se accident ho gaya ho. . " This witness further states that :- "Maine Mratak ladke ko ghatna sthal par pada nahi dekha." 9. A perusal of the aforesaid statements of two witnesses who are driver and owner of the vehicle respectively reveals the fact that firstly both the owner and driver are aware about the fact of accident. They are also aware about the date and time of the accident, inasmuch as, they both have deposed that motor-cycle in question i.e. RJ-25 M-0584 was being driven by respondent No. 2 Pritam Chand at the relevant time and the motor cycle was not being driven rashly and negligently at the time of accident. The witness Pritam Chand has deposed that accident did not occur as a result of any fault on his part but on account of the fault of the deceased. The witness Pritam Chand has deposed that accident did not occur as a result of any fault on his part but on account of the fault of the deceased. In this view of the matter, it cannot be disputed that in fact, the motor cycle RJ-25 M-0584 was being driven by respondent No. 2 Pritam Chand and the said driver of the motor cycle, was aware of the accident, though, he has tried to state that accident occurred as a result of the fault on the part of the deceased himself and not on account of any fault on his part. There is also contradiction between the statements of NAW-1 Pritam Chand and NAW-2 Prushottam Lal, inasmuch as NAW-1 Pritam Chand having clearly deposed in his examination in chief that accident did not occur as a result of any fault on his part but on account fault of the deceased himself . Subsequently, in cross-examination, he has tried to change the stand by stating that he saw the deceased lying on the spot. This subsequent part of the statement of Driver NAW-1 Pritam Chand is not corroborated by the statement of NAW - 2 Prushottam Lal who was the pillion-rider on the motor cycle with his son NAW-1 Pritam Chand. Whereas in the cross-examination he has clearly denied of having seen the deceased lying on the spot. Thus, there is contradiction between the statements of NAW-1 and NAW-2 in this ragard. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that finding on the issue No. 1 arrived at by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside. 10. Thus, there is contradiction between the statements of NAW-1 and NAW-2 in this ragard. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that finding on the issue No. 1 arrived at by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside. 10. Upon a careful perusal of the statements of NAW-1 Pritam Chand and NAW-2 Prushottam Lal who are the witnesses appearing on behalf of respondents and who are also the eye-witnesses to the accident there is preponderence of probability by which it is clearly established on record that in fact on 18.05.1991, the respondents No. 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the motor cycle RJ-25 M-0584 were going on the motor cycle at the place of accident and in fact an accident did take place involving their motor cycle and also that as a result of the aforesaid accident, deceased Kishan Singh sustained injuries which ultimately resulted into his death on account of said accident and the injuries sustained therein. The fact of the accident is also corroborated by the fact that Pritam Chand, the driver was challaned for the offence under Section 279 and 304, IPC said challan has been placed as Exh. 2 on the record filed in this case on account of FIR, Exh. 1 having been filed by Ramroop, father of the deceased. 11. In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to reverse the finding on the issue No. 1 and hold that on 18.05.1991, the deceased Kishan Singh met with an accident involving the motor cycle No. RJ-25 M-0584 which was being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No. 2 Pritam Chand and which was owned by the respondent No. 1 Prushottam Lal. 12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh rather than this Court taking it upon itself to decide this case in this appeal and has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Saraswati Devi vs. Ram Avtar & Ors., reported in 2005 (1) RLR 43. This Court, of course, in the said Judgment has held that the object of Motor Vehicles Act is based on the principle of benevolence and since the issue requires re-appreciation, the matter should be remanded back to the Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence existing on the record afresh and decide all the issues. In the said case, this Court did not discuss the evidence while reversing the finding on issue No. 1 relating to rash and negligent driving and instead of that directed the Tribunal to reconsider and re-appreciate the evidence. Since in the present case, the evidence has already been reconsidered and re-appreciated on the finding of issue No. 1, therefore, it would not be proper to remand the case back to the learned Tribunal. I am aware that so far as other issues are concerned, learned Tribunal has not decided the same in view of the findings given on issue No. 1 relating to the fact of accident as well as of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2 which was decided against the claimants. 13. In the instant case, deceased was eight years old and non-earning member. Since their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Bai & Ors. vs. Charan Singh & Ors., reported in 1998 ACJ 848 have laid down that so far as fatal accident involving minors who are non-earning members, a consolidated amount of Rs., 1,50,000/-is just compensation to be awarded. In that view of the matter, no further investigation or appreciation with regard to the evidence on other issues is required to be made and no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter back to the learned Tribunal. 14. In the instant case, the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No. 3 National Insurance Company Ltd. as is evident from the cover-note Exh. A-2 which shows that vehicle in question bearing registration No. RJ-25 M-0584 was insured with respondent No. 3 for the period 26.09.1990 - 25.09.1991 and the accident having occurred on 18.05.1991, the vehicle was insured on that date of accident. On the record the driving licence of respondent No. 2 Pritam Chand is also available as Exh. A-4, though, the same is learners licence for motor-cycle with gear and was issued on 18.05.1991. On the record the driving licence of respondent No. 2 Pritam Chand is also available as Exh. A-4, though, the same is learners licence for motor-cycle with gear and was issued on 18.05.1991. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle did not possess the said learners licence as the same has been issued on 18.05.1991 itself . Hence, it should be inferred that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and even if the said licence was issued on 18.05.1991 i.e., the date of accident, the office time starts from 10 Oclock as is said by NAW-3 Nathulal Meena, who is clerk in the Transport Department at Swai Madhopur. The impediment in this argument on behalf of the Insurance Company is that no officer or employer on behalf of the Insurance Company or any witness on behalf of the Insurance Company has come to depose before the learned Tribunal that in fact at the date and time of the accident, the driver of the motor cycle did not possess a valid driving licence. On the other hand NAW-1 Pritam Chand has clearly deposed that on the date when the accident occurred, he had a valid driving licence and has denied the suggestion that the same was obtained in connivance with the Transport Department. In this view of the matter, it cannot be disputed on the basis of the evidence on record that the vehicle in the question was duly insured and the driver respondent No. 2 Pritam Chand had a valid driving licence on the date of accident. Therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable in respect of award of compensation. The compensation in the instant case has been assessed as Rs. 1.50,000/-in the light of the Judgment of their Lordships referred to above. 15. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. It is hereby directed that claimants-appellants would be entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rs. One lakh fifty thousand only) as compensation from the owner, driver and Insurance Company, respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Said liability is joint and several. The appellants would be entitled to the interest at the rate of 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of award i.e. 02.02.2005. 16. 1,50,000/-(Rs. One lakh fifty thousand only) as compensation from the owner, driver and Insurance Company, respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Said liability is joint and several. The appellants would be entitled to the interest at the rate of 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of award i.e. 02.02.2005. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.