AMARJEET CHAUDHARY, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of FAO No. 1105 of 1987 filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Cross-Objection No. 52-CII of 1992 filed in the said appeal by claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5 for enhancement of the compensation and Cross-Objection No. 85-CII of 1992 filed by Ram Asra, owner of offending Bus No. PAB 9033 praying that the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company and the claim petition filed by the claimants be dismissed.
(2.) THE brief facts which led to the filing of this case are that Smt. Tarsem Kaur, widow of Hoshiar Singh who died in a road accident on 20.5.1986, her minor children and the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rup Nagar, hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' awarded a sum of Rs. 93,840/- as compensation. As per award of the Tribunal, the entire liability was to be discharged by the Insurance Company, the present appellant. The challenge to the impugned award is on the ground that the deceased was a Bus passenger in Bus No. PAB 9033 and as such the liability of the appellant is limited to Rs. 15.000/- as per terms of the Police and also under the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The second ground of challenge is that the owner of the offending vehicle Ram Asra had submitted a claim form Exhibit R-2 to the appellant in which it was written in his own hand-writing on 21.5.1986 that while the bus was standing at village Bhullery, one person unloading the cycle from the roof of the bus suddenly slipped and fell on the road as a result of which he got hurt and later on died in the Canal Hospital, Nangal. The next ground taken by the appellant is that Tilak Raj, Driver of the bus while appearing is RW-3, had stated that when the bus reached Dayalpur bus stop, all the passengers of bus alighted and he started the bus thereafter. He further stated that before the Conductor had whistled, on the alarms having been raised by the passengers, he came to know that a man had fallen down. The other plea is that as per claimants the deceased was in process of bringing down his cycle from the roof of the bus and was on the ladder when driver Tilak Raj drove the bus without blowing any horn and getting any signal from the bus Conductor. Even he did not care for the alarm raised by the passengers and drove the bus rashly and negligently, as a result of which Hoshiar Singh deceased fell down on the road.
(3.) MR . Munishwar Puri, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has invited the attention of the Court to X-erox copy of the insurance policy to show that as per terms of the policy the liability of the company to be discharged by it was Rs. 15,000/-. In the Cross-Objection, the claimants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the deceased was 35 years old at the time of his death. As such, the Tribunal was not justified in applying a multiplier of 12 while assessing compensation.;