1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.718 OF 1993 1. Sunil Shankar Zagade, 2. Saiprasad B. Vilankar, 3. National Insurance Co.Ltd. Appellants VERSUS 1. Vijay Vithal Nagvekar, 2. Mrs.Vandana Vijay Nagwekar Respondents Mr.M.B.Kotak for appellants. Mr.G.S.Hegade for respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th January 2010 JUDGEMENT :- 1. The original opponents to a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have taken an exception to the award of the Tribunal. The respondents are the original claimants who filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of their fifteen years old son. The accident occurred on 25th May 1991. According to the case of the claimants the deceased boy was doing the work of distributing the newspapers. When he was travelling by his bicycle for doing the work of distribution of newspapers, a dash 2 was given to him by an auto rikshaw driven by the first appellant which was owned by the second appellant and which was insured with third appellant at the relevant time. By the impugned award the compensation of Rs.80,000/- has been granted by the Tribunal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence of negligence and the negligence is not proved. He submitted that the claimants themselves had come out with the case that the deceased was earning income of Rs.300/- per month and therefore, notional income of the deceased boy cannot be considered. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition. 3. The second respondent mother of the deceased stepped into the witness box. She stated that the first appellant was driving the auto rikshaw in rash and negligent manner. In the cross examination the only suggestion given to her was that the accident occurred due to the mistake on the part of her son. No evidence has been adduced by the appellants and the first appellant has not stepped into the witness box. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the negligence on the part of the first appellant has been established. 3 4. The age of the deceased was fifteen years at the time of accident which has taken place in the year 1991. The total compensation of Rs.80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)