Bal Raj Tuli, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of F.A.O. 24 of 1969, L.P.A. 303 of 1967, L.P.A. 258 of 1970, L.P.A. 274 of 1970 and L.P.A. 287 of 1970, as they have been heard together owing to the fact that some questions of law arising in these cases are common.
(2.) THE facts of F.A.O. 24 of 1969 are that one Manohar Lal died in an accident on January 8, 1966, and his legal representatives, namely, widow, widowed mother and three minor children, filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 1,11,000.00, the details of which are as under: 1. Rs. 1,00,000.00 for the loss of life of the said Manohar Lal; 2. Rs. 1,000.00 for medical treatment and other religious rituals; and Rs. 10,000.00 for agony, harassment, pain, mental torture and worry. 3. Manohar Lal was going on a scooter when truck No. PNG 5202 dashed against him. The truck was going at such a great speed that Manohar Lal died on the spot and his scooter was also damaged. It was found by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon) (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. The applicants were held to be the legal heirs of Manohar Lal, but they were denied any compensation on the ground that they had received assets of the value exceeding Rs. 90,000.00 on the death of the deceased. As a result thereof, the application was dismissed on December 9, 1968. Smt. Dhanni Bai, widowed mother of the deceased, died on December 16, 1968, and the present appeal is on behalf of the widow and the three children of the deceased.
(3.) THE details of the assets are a factory of the value of Rs. 80,000 which was being run by the deceased and was his source of livelihood, a house valued at Rs. 6,000 and insurance amount of Rs. 8,000. The learned Tribunal came to the finding that the deceased was contributing Rs. 150.00 per mensem for the maintenance of his family and, although he was only 37 years of age at the time of his death, the compensation was calculated for a period of fifteen years only at the rate of Rs. 150.00 per mensem, that is, Rs. 27,000 in all. The Appellants have challenged the finding with regard to the quantum of compensation recorded by the learned Tribunal as well as the finding that the Appellants were not entitled to receive any compensation on account of the assets of the deceased having been received by them as his heirs.;