- (1.) Raising an important question relating to determination of compensation amount under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act), the present appeal is at the instance of claimants. Second Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal), Shahjahanpur by its judgment dated 9th September, 1991 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 47 of 1987 has found that death of Rajendra Kumar was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus attached to the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation but has awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- only as compensation for shock and suffering and denied any other amount on short ground as after death of Rajendra Kumar, his widow Smt. Lalita Rathore got compassionate appointment in place of her husband, there is no pecuniary loss to the claimants. The question which falls for determination in the present appeal is--whether benefits received by way of compassionate appointment ought to have been taken into consideration while determining the just compensation as required under Section 168 of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts may be noticed in brief. Rajendra Kumar (deceased) was engaged as a motor driver and was in service of State Government at the relevant point of time. He on 8th July, 1987 while driving Jeep bearing registration No. U.G.K. 1551 carrying Dr. S.K. Dhawan, D.P. Singh, G.M. Industries, S.K. Agarwal, Manager Marketing Industries and A.N. Gupta, Lead Bank Officer met with a road accident at about 2:30 p.m. The Jeep was going from Shahjahanpur to Jalalabad. When it reached near Allah, a bus bearing registration No. U.G.K. 1551 which was coming from opposite direction dashed against the Jeep. The claim petition was filed with the allegations that the said bus was being driven rashly and negligently and it caused the accident. In the said accident, Rajendra Kumar received 14 antemortem injuries and he ultimately died in hospital after two days. He was getting pay around Rs. 1,000/- per month and salary certificate was filed showing that he was getting Rs. 1096/- per month. He was aged about 28 years at the time of death. A lump sum amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was claimed as compensation amount against the defendants.
(2.) In the said claim petition, Smt. Pachoo, mother of deceased, Smt. Lalita widow of deceased and Km. Rekha aged about three years, daughter of deceased, were claimants. Darshan Lal, owner of bus, its driver Ghaffar Hussain, National Insurance Co. Ltd. with whom the bus was insured and U.P.S.R.T.C. were impleaded as defendants. The claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing separate replies. It was stated that the bus bearing registration No. U.G.K. 1551 was not being driven rashly and negligently. The bus driver was holding valid driving license and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, if any, to the claimants.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for determination. 1. Whether the accident has taken place due to negligent driving of the bus U.P.O. 5966? 2. Whether the claim is too excessive? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to recover the compensation amount and from whom?;