VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the award dated 10.5.1985 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short the 'Tribunal') in MACT case No. 5 of 8.7.1984 vide which the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimants was ordered to be dismissed.
(2.) THE appellants-claimants filed a petition against the respondents claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. forty thousand). It was pleaded in the claim petition that Sukhdev Singh deceased who was son of the appellant-claimants, was employed with the Post and Telegraph Department on daily wages and his monthly salary was Rs. 300/-. It was the case of the claimants that the Post and Telegraph Department had engaged a Tempo bearing No. HRJ 4379 for carrying telephone exchange machinery from Jind to Kilajafargarh. On 17th March, 1983, the said tempo, driven by Rajpal Singh, was going to Kilajafargarh and at that time Sub-Divisional Officer (Phones) and Junior Engineer (Phones) were sitting by the side of the driver while some labourers were standing at the back of the tempo. When this tempo crossed Jullana, its left rear wheel went off the axle, as a result of which Sukhdev Singh fell from the tempo and received serious injuries. It was claimed that the driver was driving the tempo rashly and negligently and at a fast speed. Sukhdev Singh was taken to Health Centre, Jullana, from where he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Rohtak, where he expired after five days. The age of the deceased at that time was 25 years. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was claimed as compensation. The claim was contested and it was claimed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that driver was not driving the tempo in a rash and negligent manner. It was further claimed that all of a sudden rear wheel of the tempo left its axle and out of fear the deceased Sukhdev Singh had jumped from the vehicle in order to save his life and in that process received injuries on his person. It was also the case of the respondents that Sukhdev Singh died due to his own negligence and not due to negligence of respondent No. 2. The factum of tempo having been hired by the Post and Telegraph Department was admitted. The liability to pay compensation was denied.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :- "1. Whether the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to recover and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether the petitioners are not related to the deceased and hence (have) no locus standi to file the petition ? OPR 4. Relief." On issue No. 1 a finding was recorded by the learned tribunal that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and in view of this, issue No. 2 was also decided against the claimant- appellants, whereas issue No. 3 was decided against the respondents. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed.;