IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1142 OF 1995 FIRST APPEAL NO.1142 OF 1995 FIRST APPEAL NO.1142 OF 1995 Suresh Shivappa Swami & Ors. )..Appellants Versus Pundlik Vasantrao Yadav & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.V.B.Rajure for the appellants. Mr.P.B.Parab i/by D.S.Sawant for the respondent no.2 Mr.M.G.Barve for respondent no.3. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 16.4.2008. PC 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants who were original opponent nos.1 & 2 in MACT No.135/1988 pending before the Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Kolhapur. On perusal of the record, it is found that by the impugned judgment and order the MACT, Kolhapur has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- together with interest and proportionate cost to be paid to each claimants i.e. Pundlik Vasantrao Yadav and Shantabai Pundalik Yadav. This amount includes the amount of no fault liability of Rs.15,000/-. Interest @ 12% per annum has been awarded. 2. On perusing the judgment and order, I find that cogent reasons based upon the evidence on record have been given. The child crushed under the : 2 : tractor and trolley is a boy of 4 to 5 years. It was urged that when such a young child was on the road, it was incumbant upon the driver of the truck to run slowly and cautiously. The version of the opponent that the deceased fell from the trolley while attempting to get sugar cane was disbelieved. On behalf of the claimant, eye witness Shyamrao Yadav has been examined. It was observed that the name of the eye witness appeared in the FIR in the capacity of the eye witness. It was found that there was nothing in the cross-examination to disbelieve his version that the tractor has been driven rashly and negligently. The version given by one Nana Kamble was disbelieved on the ground that his name did not appear in the FIR and his presence on the spot of accident was doubtful. 3. Having perused the evidence and the judgment and order, I am in concurrence with the finding of MACT. I find no substance in this appeal and hence, appeal is dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)