B.B.L. Shrivastava, J.
1. This appeal arises out of award dated 13-7-81 in claim case No. 28/78 of the Court of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Dewas, allowing no compensation to the applicant-appellant, in respect of death of his son aged about 14 years, in the accident by the M.P.S.R.T.C. Bus in question.
2. Appellant-applicant's case is that deceased had died in consequence of injuries sustained due to rash and negligent driving of the said bus and compensation of Rs. 30,000/- was claimed, which was resisted on the ground that the accident in question was for no fault of the bus driver, who was also not the authorized driver, and deceased who had suddenly emerged on the road from behind a stationary vehicle himself dashed against the M.P.S.R.T.C. Bus, which had by then stopped also.
3. Driver Abdul Gani NAW 1 in his evidence does not state that the deceased dashed against the M.P.S.R.T.C. bus when it had already stopped. On the other hand, he admits (NAW 1 Para 8) that his bus had stopped nearly two to three yards ahead of where the boy sustained the injury. This is thus out right a case, where the deceased, who bad suddenly appeared from behind another stationary bus, from which passengers were getting (NAW 1 Para 1) down, was knocked down by the M.P.S.R.T.C. bus in question, as detailed by applicant's eyewitnesses also, to reject whose versions there are practically no grounds. It is case of rash and negligent driving, on part of the M.P.S.R.T.C. bus driver, because while crossing a stationary bus, from which passengers are getting (NAW 1 Para 1) down, he should reasonably have expected some one to suddenly emerge on the road from behind that, and his speed should also have been such so as to pull up in time in the event of any emergency. Driver Abdul Gani NAW 1, on the other hand, admits (Para 1) that speed of the bus in question was about 35 k.m. Per hour. In ACJ 1975 page 56 (Para 26), ACJ 1969 page 82 (Para 13), ACJ 1972 page 403 (Para 7), ACJ 1970 page 433 (Para 10), rashness and negligence have been upheld in identical situations. It is thus held that the accident in question occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the M.P.S.R.T.C. bus driver.
4. In the written statement also, it is admitted (Para 1) that Jiwan-singh is no more alive and he is dead. There are no grounds to reject categorical assertion of Keshar singh PW 1 on the point that deceased had died in the hospital during the course of treatment of the injuries sustained in the accident.
5. It is further alleged in the written statement that at the time of the accident, authorised driver was not driving the Bus. If the authorised driver permits some one, to drive the vehicle, who is also employed driver of the same owner (NA.W. 1 Para 1) owner's liability is not exonerated.
6. In the appeal memo, compensation claim on account of death of deceased Jiwansingh aged about 14 years is confined to sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Several years ago, normal compensation on death of boys of nearly this age (ACJ 1981 page 299) used to be about Rs. 6000/-. Keeping in mind, the rapid fall, in money value, since then, reasonable compensation in the instant case should be Rs. 20,000/- at least, because the very claim petition, has not specified any particulars whatsoever, with regard to any loss, in respect of parental dependency, relating to deceased child.
7. Appeal is therefore allowed and respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to appellant with interest thereon @ Rs. 12% p.a (ACJ 1987 page 15, Supreme Court) from date of petition to date of payment. Respondents shall further pay costs of the appellant in respect of this appeal. Counsel's fee allowed Rs. 250/-, if certified.