V.V. Vaze, J.
1. Pohal was the son of Biru singh, Ratansingh and Dipa of Verseva, staying near Biju Bank Building, Ganga Bhuvan Road, Andheri, Bombay. On 14th September 1973 a motor vehicle belonging to opposite party No. 1 dashed against Pohal who was then about six and a half years old, and bounced him to a distance of about 17 feet away as a result of which he was killed. The parents of the child filed an application before the Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay, making the owner of the vehicle and the Union Co-operative Insurance Co. Ltd., as the opposite parties. The Tribunal rejected the claims and hence this appeal.
2. Though the Insurance Company had put in appearance, they did not file any written statement, and the owner of the vehicle did not appear at all before the tribunal. The applicants examined Dipa, the mother of the child, who said that while she was standing by the door of her house, she noticed that a vehicle came and hit her son with the result that he died on the spot. The applicants examined one Ranchhod a municipal sweeper who deposed to have seen the accident and as a result of which the boy was killed when he was coming out of the gate near bis bouse and was standing on the katcha road when the vehicle hit him.
3. Though no evidence was led on behalf of the opposite parties, the learned Member of the Tribunal concluded that the evidence of Dipa and Ranchhod is not worthy of credence and hence dismissed the claims. The learned Member has found fault with Dipa on the ground that she did not tell the police about the incident. As regards the other witness Ranchhod, the learned Member concluded that as Ranchhod was sweeping the street, his attention was drawn only after he heard the thud, and hence cannot be called an eye witness. I am afraid there was nothing to discredit the evidence of Ranchhod or Dipa when they told about the accident and even if the attention of Ranchhod was drawn to the vehicle when he heard a thud, his evidence regarding the accident which he saw immediately after the impact which indication that the boy was on the katcha portion of the road--is unimpeachable. The learned Member has found fault with Dipa on the ground that the claims application refers to the applicant having learnt about the accident, which rules out the possibility of her having been an eye witness. A perusal of the application shows that it has been drafted in the first person singular, as if there is only one applicant, but actually the names of Birusingh and Dipa appeared as applicants. Obviously the averments regarding the applicant learning about the accident could be referable to Birusingh, the father of the boy, and not Dipa. Secondly, the application is in English and both the applicants have out their thumb marks which indicates that the niceties of the grammar were lost sight of by them.
4. As regards the quantum of damages, there is not much on record except to indicate that the applicant's son Pohal aged six and a half years was a student whom the applicants described as 'an obedient son who was liked by all.' The claims of Rs. 40,000/- is no doubt exaggerated and I find that ends justice would be met by reducing the same of Rs. 2,000/-.
5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the Respondents are ordered to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the applicants, The Respondents to bear their own costs and to pay those of the applicants. The Court fee to be recovered by the Collector.