RANJIT SINGH, J. - (1.) KAMLA Devi, her two minor daughters, a son and her parents-in-law, are in appeal against the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') denying them compensation on account of death of Raj Kumar, husband of Kamla Devi, appellant. The Tribunal, even after having found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, declined compensation to the appellants and leaving them with a meagre payment of Rs. 15,000 due to no fault liability clause. Through this appeal, they have challenged this finding of the Tribunal and seek enhancement of compensation as determined and awarded to them.
(2.) ON 12.2.1985, Raj Kumar, husband of appellant No. 1, was proceeding on a scooter bearing registration No. DHS 5374 on Ludhiana-Moga Road for purchasing motor parts. At about 5.00 p.m., a bus bearing registration No. PUC 3381 driven by one Kulwant Singh (respondent) came from Ludhiana side and hit the scooter driven by Raj Kumar while it (the scooter) was being driven on its left side. The scooter, after being hit, was dragged to adistance of 35 metres. As a result, Raj Kumar received serious injuries and later succumbed to these. A claim petition was, accordingly, filed by his wife and others, as stated above, claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 on account of the death of said Raj Kumar. The evidence was led to show that deceased Raj Kumar owned a truck which he had purchased after talcing a loan. It is also on record that he was paying a sum of Rs. 4,000 per month as an instalment of the loan and otherwise was saving more than Rs. 3,000 per month even thereafter. It was, accordingly, pleaded that late Raj Kumar was contributing a sum of Rs. 2,500 per month for the maintenance of the claimant's family. A written statement was filed contesting the averments made in the claim petition. The accident was denied. The respondents otherwise did not lead any evidence before the Tribunal. One Ajmer Singh, AW-3, who had witnessed this accident, was produced as a witness on behalf of the claimants. He testified that he had seen the bus No. PUC 3381 driven by Kulwant Singh, respondent, hitting the scooter driven by late Raj Kumar while the scooter was on its left side. This witness claimed that at the time of accident, he was standing at the shop of one Des Raj and taking tea. He clearly brought out in his evidence that the scooter and its rider-Raj Kumar, were dragged to adistance of 30-35 karams. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondent. Even the driver of the truck Kulwant Singh, respondent also did not step into the witness box. The Tribunal relied upon the version of Ajmer Singh and held that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of Kulwant Singh, driver of the bus. This finding is not under challenge in any manner. It is even otherwise not open to challenge on any ground.
(3.) HAVING so held, the Tribunal made assessment in regard to compensation payable in the case. Reference was made to the evidence showing that Raj Kumar was owner of a truck to the extent of 95% and he had purchased the same by raising a loan. It was noticed that Raj Kumar was not driving the truck himself and the driver, employed by him still continued to drive the same even after his death. Thus, noticing these facts, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant did not suffer any pecuniary loss as the truck would still be driven by the driver, as was being done earlier and hence the income being contributed by late Raj Kumar to the family would be the same even after his death. The Tribunal, accordingly, held that there is no loss of earning and hence left the claimants high and dry by paying Rs. 15,000 on account of no fault liability.;