ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 7.7.2007 passed by XI Additional Member, MACT, Indore in Claim Case No. 103/2005, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that appellant has failed to prove that accident occurred by the offending vehicle, present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that appellant who was minor aged four years, filed the claim petition alleging that on 19.3.2005 when the appellant was going with his grand mother at about 4:00 p.m., at that time a car bearing registration No. MP 09-HB-5537 which was driven by respondent No.2, owned by respondent No.1 (A) dashed the appellant with the result appellant sustained fracture in his right leg. Appellant was hospitalized. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was driven by respondent No.2 rashly and negligently and insured with respondent No.3. It was prayed that the claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. 3. The claim petition was contested by the respondent No.3, on various grounds including on the ground that there was a collusion between appellant and respondent No. 1 (A) and 2. It was prayed that claim petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal assessed the compensation as Rs. 25,000/-, but dismissed the claim petition holding that it appears that there is collusion between appellant and respondents No. 1 (A) and 2. It was also held that it is not proved that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. Being aggrieved by the award, present appeal has been filed. 3A. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was aged four years and minor at the relevant time was going with his grand mother, when he met with an accident. Learned counsel submits that thereafter appellant was brought to Shashi Nursing Home where the appellant was given primary treatment. It is submitted that appellant was brought to the hospital by respondent No.2 himself in his car. It is submitted that grand mother of the appellant was assured by the respondent No.2 that he will bear the medical expenses, but later on respondent No. 2 ran away. Learned counsel submits that appellant was having no means to clear all the bills of nursing home. It is submitted that grand mother of the appellant was assured by the respondent No.2 that he will bear the medical expenses, but later on respondent No. 2 ran away. Learned counsel submits that appellant was having no means to clear all the bills of nursing home. It is submitted that on next day appellant informed the concerned police station and under the advice of the police, appellant was brought to M. Y. Hospital, Indore. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Tribunal committed error in holding that there was collusion between appellant and respondent No. 1 (A) and 2. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 (A) submits that even if it is found that the accident has taken place, then too the respondent No.3 is liable for payment of compensation as the offending vehicle was insured. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that Ex. P-10 is the prescription in which it is mentioned that the injuries were sustained by the appellant because of fall. It is submitted that there was no evidence on record to show that respondent No.2 took the appellant to the hospital. 6. From perusal of the record it appears that criminal case was registered against respondent No.2 under sections 279 and 338 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Respondent No.2 has also confessed the guilt and paid the fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The accident took place on 19.3.2005 at about 4:00 p.m. and the report was also lodged on the next day. Injured was accompanied with his grand mother at the relevant time who has been examined on behalf of the appellant. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant was aged four years only, it cannot be said that there was any collusion between grand mother of the appellant and respondent No. 1 (A). Ample evidence is on record to show that accident took place in which offending vehicle was involved and appellant sustained injuries. 7. So far as the compensation is concerned, in case of fracture of child aged four years the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal appears to be just and proper. In view of this appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed. The findings relating to dismissal of the claim petition filed by the appellant stands set aside. The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. In view of this appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed. The findings relating to dismissal of the claim petition filed by the appellant stands set aside. The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The compensation which shall be payable by respondent No.1 (A) to 3 jointly and severally shall carry interest @ 7.5%. Since the appellant is minor aged four years, therefore, it is directed that amount be deposited with the Nationalized Bank for a long term fixed deposit and the same will be utilized for the purpose of education of the appellant. 8. With the aforesaid direction this appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.