Amol Rattan Singh, J. - (1.) These two appeals arise out of the award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, dated 29.04.1991. The four appellants (two in each appeal) had filed claim petitions under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the learned Tribunal.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of claim petition are that on 01.02.1990 at about 8:40 a.m., Chander Mohan Verma, aged 24 years, Smt. Sunita, wife of Sanjay Kumar, aged 22 years (later shown to be 33 years) and Smt. Sangeeta (later shown to be Sanjogta) wife of Parmod Kumar, aged 35 years, were coming from Delhi towards Ambala in Maruti Car No. DBD -1053, driven by Chander Mohan Verma. When the car reached the Shahabad barrier on the G.T. Road, a bus of the Delhi Transport Corporation, bearing registration No. DEP -9933, driven by respondent No. 1, is stated to have come from the opposite direction. The case set up was that the bus was being driven in a very rash and negligent manner and was at a high speed. It struck against the car and dragged it for a long distance, as a result of which all the occupants of the car, including Chander Mohan Verma, Smt. Sunita and Smt. Sanjogta, unfortunately died on the spot. An FIR is also stated to have been registered at 10:05 a.m., on the same date, by one Raman Kumar, against respondent No. 1, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Ss. 279/337/338/304 -A of the IPC. A site plan exhibited as Ex. P -10 was prepared by SI Avtar Singh and photographs of the same are also stated to have been taken. However, a finding of negligence having been arrived at against respondent No. 1 and it not being under challenge by any of the respondents, the only issue to be considered by this Court is as to whether the compensation awarded to the appellants is adequate or not. FAO No. 1054 of 1991
(3.) The appellants in this appeal are Sanjay Kumar and his minor son Hamanshu, who sought a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ - on account of the death of Sunita, wife of appellant No. 1 and mother of appellant No. 2.;