S.K. Seth, J.
1. It is established beyond doubt from the evidence produced in the case that Anurag, a child aged ten years, died as a result of a city bus belonging to the defendant No. 1, MP. State Road Transport Corporation having dashed against him. It is also established from the said evidence that the defendant No. 2, Ranjit Singh, was driving the said bus at the relevant time. It is true that it was tried to be suggested by the defendants through their witnesses that Anurag fell from the bus when he was attempting to get into it in an unauthorised manner. But, then, the witnesses in question were defendant No. 1 Corporation's own servants and their evidence did not inspire confidence. As against the said evidence, the evidence of AW 5 Sureshchand who had seen Anurag walking on the left side of the road and the city bus coming from behind with great speed and dashing its front left wheel against Anurag was trustworthy. The said witness was a tradesman. From his evidence, he appeared to be an independent witness. In the opinion of this court, the tribunal did not commit any error in coming to the conclusion that the death of Anurag was caused due to the act of the driver of the bus driving the same in a rash and negligent manner.
2. The claim for compensation was preferred by father, mother and sister of the deceased. It was clear from the evidence of the father that Anurag was a student of Class VI in the Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Raipur at the relevant time. It was also clear from his evidence, as also that of the headmaster, that Anurag was quite a bright student and used to pass his examinations in first division. On the date of the accident, the age of the father and the mother of the deceased was less than fourteen years (14 years). The deceased was their only son. Their only daughter Rajnee was aged about nineteen years and was a student of B.Sc. (1st year). In the circumstances, there is no reason to think that the compensation of Rs. 13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants was excessive any manner whatsoever. In fact, the said aspect of the matter is also not seriously challenged by the appellants.
3. The present appeal is by defendant No. 1 MP State Road Transport Corporation. It is tried to be argued on its behalf that the sister of the deceased was not entitled to obtain any compensation and that the Tribunal committed an error in specifying that an amount of Rs. 2,000/- be paid to her. In the opinion of this court, as the remaining two claimants i.e. the father and the mother of the deceased have no objection to the amount of Rs. 2,000/- being paid to their daughter out of the total amount of Rs. 13,000/-awarded to all of them, it is not necessary to consider the said argument of the defendant No. 1 appellant.
4. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee as per schedule, or a certificate, whichever is less.