- (1.) This appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Petition No. 51 of 1991/1992, on December 09,1993, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, has been filed by Vikramjit Singh and Jatinderpal Singh, sons, Mahinderpal Kaur, daughter and Amrik Singh, husband, of Joginder Kaur, since deceased. In nut-shell, the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal, may be recapitulated thus: On May 12,1991, at about 4.00 p.m., Amrik Singh alongwith his wife Joginder Kaur (since deceased),was returning on a scooter bearing registration No. PAA-1259 after attending a marriage of his niece and he was being followed by his brother-in-law, namely Inderjit Singh, on a moped. When they reached near crossing of Jahazgarh, an Air Force Truck bearing No. 80-D 345-A, being driven by respondent No. 2, in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind. While overtaking, the said truck had struck against the scooter of Amrik Singh, who sustained injuries, whereas his wife had died due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. FIR in this case was lodged against respondent No. 2 immediately thereafter on the same day at 5.55. p.m. On the other hand, the respondents denied the occurrence of the accident in the manner as alleged by the appellants and further submitted that in fact, Amrik Singh, who was driving the scooter was under the influence of liquor and as such, he had lost control over the scooter and that no such accident had ever occurred.
(2.) The learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as' the Tribunal'), on the pleadings of the parties, had framed the following issues on November 19,1992: 1. Whether Joginder Kaur w/o Amrik Singh died in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of truck Nos. 80 D 345-A belonging to respondent No. 1, by respondent No. 2 OPA 2. Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation If so to what amount OPA 3. Whether the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties OPR 4. Relief.
(3.) After recording the evidence and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, respondent No. 2. was found to have caused the accident while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In a Claim Petition bearing No. 51 of 1991/1992, while awarding the compensation to the appellants on account of death of Smt. Joginder Kaur, in para 16 of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal, observed as under: Smt. Joginder Kaur would have continued to draw her salary for a period of 6 years. Her income has been assessed at Rs. 3600/- per month and out of this, she had been spending money for her own maintenance and as such, dependency is taken at Rs. 2000/- p.m. The annual dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/- and the amount of dependency for a period of six years comes to Rs. 1,44,000/-. After the expiry of six years, Joginder Kaur would have retired and as such the dependency is taken only @ Rs. 500/- per month. The annual dependency comes to Rs. 6000/- and the amount for the remaining four years comes to Rs. 24,000/-. The total amount comes to Rs. 1,68,000/- to which amount the claimants are entitled. The learned Counsel for the claimants argued that the applicants are also entitled to compensation for the suffering for loss of love etc, but I am of the opinion that no compensation can be allowed for the same.;