Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is directed by the appellant/clamant under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act (In short "the Act") being aggrieved by the award dated 19. 4. 2000 passed by Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Sagar in Claim Case No. 59/99 dismissing his claim regarding injuries sustained in a vehicular accident. ( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellant being minor aged 16 years preferred his claim through his father the next friend contending that on 9. 12. 1998, he was going to village Hinota Kalan from village Surkhi by boarding a tractor bearing registration No. M. P. 15-F/5019, driven by respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner, resultantly on the way he fell down and sustained the injuries. He was taken to hospital, where his MLC report was prepared. On carrying out the x-ray, the fracture in his left leg was revealed. The incident was reported to police out post Tilli, on which a criminal case was registered against the respondent No. 1. After holding investigation, he was charge sheeted for the same. Besides the aforesaid fracture he also sustained the grievous injuries in his left eye. The huge amount of Rs. 50,000/-was spent on his treatment. He sustained the permanent disability in his left leg and also suffered the physical pain and mental agony. He was the student of 9th standard. The aforesaid tractor was registered in the name of respondent No. 2 while the same was insured with respondent No. 3. In such premises, the claim was preferred for the sum of rs. 4,00,000/- along with the interest @ 18% p. a. ( 3. ) AS per the case of respondent No. 1 and 2 such tractor was not driven by the respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner, in fact the appellant tried to board the running tractor in which he fell down and sustained the injuries. On account of such injuries appellant did not sustain any permanent disability or any deficiency in his eyesight; The claim is preferred for excessive some. On holding any liability against them, the same be saddled against respondent No. 3/insurer; as the tractor was insured with it. ( 4. On account of such injuries appellant did not sustain any permanent disability or any deficiency in his eyesight; The claim is preferred for excessive some. On holding any liability against them, the same be saddled against respondent No. 3/insurer; as the tractor was insured with it. ( 4. ) IN reply of respondent No. 3 by denying the averment of claim petition, it is stated that tractor was insured for agricultural purpose while the same was plied by the respondent No. 1 without having effective driving license for carrying the passengers contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, thus, it is not liable to indemnify the claim. With these averments the prayer for dismissal of the claim is made. ( 5. ) AFTER framing the issues and recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same by holding the alleged accident was not the cause and consequence of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, the claim was dismissed in toto. The same is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the claimant. ( 6. ) SHRI Neeraj Ashar, learned appearing counsel of the appellant argued, that in view of evidence available on the record, the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 was established and the Tribunal ought to have awarded the claim in favour of the appellant but the same has been dismissed under the wrong premises. He further said that tractor was duly insured covering the risk of third party in which the appellant was fully covered but without considering the same his claim has been dismissed under the wrong premises and prayed for awarding the same by allowing this appeal. ( 7. ) RESPONDING the aforesaid argument Shri Nitin Karan, counsel for respondent NO. 1 and 2 by justifying the impugned award said that the appellant has failed to prove any negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1 while driving the aforesaid tractor. By referring the deposition of respondent No. 1 Darasingh (N. A. W. 1), he said that the appellant was not travelling by boarding the tractor but he was trying to board the running tractor, in which he fell down and sustained the injuries. In such premises he could have been treated to be third party covered by the insurance policy. By referring the deposition of respondent No. 1 Darasingh (N. A. W. 1), he said that the appellant was not travelling by boarding the tractor but he was trying to board the running tractor, in which he fell down and sustained the injuries. In such premises he could have been treated to be third party covered by the insurance policy. In such premises, firstly in the lack of any negligence on the part of respondent No. 1 no liability of claim could be saddled against such respondent. In alternative he said that on holding any liability against him, the same be saddled against respondent No. 3/insurer; as the appellant was trying to board the running tractor, accordingly he being third party was fully covered under the insurance policy. ( 8. ) SHRI Sanjay Agrawal with Shri Pramod Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No. 3/insurer by justifying the impugned award said that the Tribunal has not committed any error in dismissing the claim. By elaborating his argument, he said that claimant was 17 years of the age on the date of filing the claim petition but he did not enter in the witness box to prove the case. So firstly on account of his non-examination he does not deserve for any claim, secondly according to his own case he was travelling by boarding the offending tractor while the same was insured for the driver and owner besides the third party in which the appellant was not covered as the risk of any passenger was not covered under the policy. Therefore, in any case the liability to indemnify the claim could not be saddled against this respondent. By placing his reliance on reported case in the matter of Hussain Pasha Vs. Andhra pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. and another reported in 2006 acj 2509 the prayer for dismissal of the appeal is made. ( 9. ) HAVING heard the counsel, I have gone through the record of the Tribunal and also perused the impugned award, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed grave error in dismissing the entire claim of the appellant; the same ought to have been awarded till the extent of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act. ( 10. ( 10. ) IT is apparent that the appellant being 16 years boy was minor on the date of the accident that is why the claim petition was filed through his father the next friend, who entered in the witness box on behalf of the appellant. Looking to the age of the claimant on the date of the accident or on the date of filing the petition i. e. 16 or 17 years, it could not be expected from him that he should have entered in the witness box to state the entire incident. Thus, the non-examination of the appellant does not give any circumstance to draw any adverse inference against him. On the other hand his case has been proved by his father the next friend. ( 11. ) AT the time of happening the accident Sitaram the next friend of appellant was not present on the spot; he filed the claim only on the information received from other persons or from the record of the Criminal case. It is true that as per claim petition the appellant was travelling by boarding the tractor and on the way he fell down and sustained the injuries but in support of this contention none of the eyewitness has been examined on behalf of the appellant. As per deposition of Sitaram (A. W. 1) the next friend of the claimant, he received the information on telephone by his son that appellant bansidhar fell down from the tractor and sustained the injuries for which he was taken to hospital while other witness Santosh Singh (A. W. 2) in paragraph 3 of his cross examination categorically stated that he did not see the actual accident. He reached at the place of incident only on calling by respondent No. 1 after happening the accident. Therefore, he is also not the eyewitness of the incident. Mahipsingh (A. W. 3) the brother of the appellant, categorically stated that said Santosh Singh told him about the alleged accident. Accordingly he is also not the eyewitness of the incident. ( 12. ) ON the other hand respondent No. 1 Darasingh (NAW. Therefore, he is also not the eyewitness of the incident. Mahipsingh (A. W. 3) the brother of the appellant, categorically stated that said Santosh Singh told him about the alleged accident. Accordingly he is also not the eyewitness of the incident. ( 12. ) ON the other hand respondent No. 1 Darasingh (NAW. 1-2/1)the driver of the offending tractor categorically stated that before one and half year he was going to home from village Surkhi by his tractor, on the way without his knowledge the appellant tried to board his running tractor in which on sustaining the injuries he shouted, on which, he stationed the tractor and saw the appellant injured, then he took him to the hospital with the assistance of Santosh Singh and also informed to his father. After providing preliminary treatment he was referred to Sagar for further treatment then he took the appellant sagar also. He also spent the sum on his treatment. In the aforesaid premises, it is apparent that except respondent No. 1 Dara Singh the driver of the tractor no other eye witness of the incident has been examined. It is settled proposition of law that driver of the offending vehicle is the best witness of the incident to explain the circumstance. In the lack of any evidence of eyewitness the testimony of respondent no. 1 could not be discarded. The provision of Motor Vehicle Act has been enacted keeping in view the social welfare of the sufferer of the vehicular accident. In the lack of any evidence regarding rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, it could not be inferred that the appellant sustained the alleged injuries because of any negligent act of the respondent No. 1. In the lack of it, in view of aforesaid cited case of "hussain Pasha" (Supra) decided by the Andhra Pradesh high Court, the appellant claim deserves to be allowed for the sum which is payable under Section 140 of the Act on account of no fault liability. According to such section the respondent No. 2 is duty bound to pay the sum on account of no fault liability and in such premises as per insurance policy the respondent No. 3/ insurer is also liable to indemnify such claim to the third party in which the appellant was fully covered. ( 13. ) AS per MLC report (Ex. According to such section the respondent No. 2 is duty bound to pay the sum on account of no fault liability and in such premises as per insurance policy the respondent No. 3/ insurer is also liable to indemnify such claim to the third party in which the appellant was fully covered. ( 13. ) AS per MLC report (Ex. P. 3) the appellant sustained the following injuries on his person: 1. Lacerated wound 12x2x1 cm. deep dossal of left foot. 2. Lacerated wound left tibia 10x2x1 cm. out upper " of left leg. 3. Contusive blue discolourment (swelling) 5 x 3 cm. left eyebrow. 4. Contusion 6x3 cm Rt. occipital region of skull. 5. not seen ileum at scapular region 6. lacerated wound 1 x " x " cm. left side of upper lip. ( 14. ) AS per x-ray report (Ex. P. 12) the appellant sustained the fracture of epiphysis of tibia of left ankle, on account of which he sustained the permanent disability in his left leg for which certificated dated 4. 3. 1994 of orthopedic specialist of District Hospital Sagar (Ex. P. 4) is also proved on record the same has not been challenged by any of the respondents. Thus, the same appears to be reliable. Under such premises, it is held that appellant sustained permanent disability in his leg because of aforesaid injuries sustained in the alleged vehicular accident. ( 15. ) IN the aforesaid premises, it is held that the Tribunal has committed grave error and perversity in dismissing the entire claim of the appellant while the same ought to have been awarded for rs. 25,000/-on account of the no fault liability in view of the provision of Section 140 of the Act. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be and is hereby set aside and the appellant"s claim is awarded for Rs. 25,000/ ( 16. ) UNDER the aforesaid premises, this appeal is allowed in part and by setting aside the impugned award the claim of the appellant is allowed on the principle of no fault liability and the same is awarded for Rs. 25,000/ -. The same shall carry interest @ 6% p. a. from the date of filing the claim petition i. e. 18. 1. 1999. The same is to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally within three months from today. Besides this, the respondent shall also pay Rs. 25,000/ -. The same shall carry interest @ 6% p. a. from the date of filing the claim petition i. e. 18. 1. 1999. The same is to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally within three months from today. Besides this, the respondent shall also pay Rs. 1,500/-to the appellant as costs of this appeal. ( 17. ) APPEAL is allowed in part as indicated above.