K.C.PURI, J. - (1.) ON 5.1.1986 at about 4.30 PM, Harjinder Singh deceased and Harnek Singh were returning from village Rupana to Muktsar after discharging their duty, on cycles. They were coming on the road. Harjinder Singh was going ahead of others. Harnek Singh and Surjit Singh were following him. When they reached near Paper Mill, Rupana, they saw a tractor coming from the front side and behind it, two buses were coming at a very high speed. The first bus overtook the tractor and had crossed Harjinder Singh. Thereafter, bus bearing registration No. PUT-8925, owned by respondent No. 1. Dabwali Transport Company Private Limited, driven by respondent Gurcharan Singh in the process of overtaking the tractor, struck with the cycle of Harjinder Singh due to which he fell in the pit. He was taken to the hospital at Muktsar and later on died. A report was lodged with the police.
(2.) IT is further alleged Sukhwinder Kaur is the widow, claimants Jasbir Singh, Gurmit Singh and Amandeep Kaur are children and claimants Karnail Singh and Gurdev Kaur are parents of deceased Harjinder Singh. They filed claim petition for the grant of compensation on account of death of Harjinder Singh in a motor vehicle accident. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contested the claim petition. They denied all the averments of the claimants. They pleaded that the accident took place due to negligence of deceased. The accident was caused by the bus of Samundri Highways which was proceeding ahead of the bus owned by Dabwali Transport Company. They also denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 713.70P. They also took preliminary objection that the claimants had received Rs. 45,475/- under Workmen Compensation Act as compensation for the death of Harjinder Singh. Hence, the application was not maintainable under Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 also contested the claim of the claimants. In the written statement, it has been pleaded in the preliminary objections that the claim petition was vague and did not disclose any cause of action; that no details have been given as to how the amount of Rs. three lacs had been claimed; that the bus in question was not driven by an authorized person having valid and effective driving licence; that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties such as owner, driver and insurance company of the alleged bus and tractor; that the respondent No. 3 was not liable unless and until it was proved that the bus had a valid route permit, fitness certificate and registration certificate at the time of alleged accident and that the liability of the respondent No. 3 was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the terms and conditions of the policy of Insurance. On merits, it was denied that the bus in question was involved in the accident. Any change in the ownership of the vehicle before the date of alleged accident exonerates the respondent No. 3 from any liability. It was denied that the alleged accident took place due to negligence of driver of bus No. PUT-8925. It was also denied that the deceased would have lived upto 90 years had he died a natural death.;