A.K.Yog, R.K.Rastogi, JJ. - (1.) Both these appeal and the cross-objection have arisen out of an award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 88 of 1988, Shanti Devi v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation.
(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of above appeal and cross-objection are that the claimants-respondents filed the aforesaid claim petition before the M.A.C.T., Kanpur Dehat under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 with these allegations that Mahesh Chandra Verma who was husband of claimant No. 1 and father of claimant-respondent Nos. 2 to 6 was waiting for a Tempo for going to his village Shivrajpur near Townpora, G.T. Road on 28.4.1988 at about 2.40 p.m. At that time Corporation bus No. UHK 883 of Bewar Depot, Etawah, reached there. It was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and it crushed Mahesh Chandra Verma. Consequently Mahesh Chandra Verma died on the spot. F.I.R. of the incident was lodged at Police Station Bilhaur on the same day. Mahesh Chandra Verma was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident. He was a commission agent in the transport business and was also doing the business of supply of building material and was earning Rs. 2,200 per month from this business. He was the only earning member of his family and from the date of the accident, the claimants lost their source of livelihood. If he had not died in the accident, he would have lived for 40 years more and would have contributed Rs. 5,28,000 up to the age of 60 years. They, therefore, claimed the above amount for loss of dependency and Rs. 5,000 for mental agony because of his death; in all Rs. 5,33,000.
(3.) The case was contested by the appellant respondent U.P.S.R.T.C. It filed its written statement. A perusal of the written statement reveals that it is only denial of the allegations made in the claim petition and does not specifically state its own case which is generally described in final pleas of the written statement. The case of the claimants-opposite parties, as pleaded in paras 1 to 6, 9, 10, 12 to 14 and 18 to 21 of the petition has been flatly denied in the written statement. Regarding paras 8, 11 and 17 it has been pleaded that they do not require admission or denial. In para 7, it has been stated that the contents of para 7 of the claim petition are denied and the petitioners are put to strict proof thereof. It has further been stated thereon that the father of the deceased cannot be treated to be legal heir of the deceased in presence of widow and children of the deceased. It may, however, be pointed out that this claim petition has been filed by the widow and children of the deceased and the father of the deceased had not been impleaded. As such it is not clear as to why this plea regarding father has been taken in para 7 of the written statement.;