- (1.) These appeals are against the award dated 10-10-1995 whereby the Tribunal has passed the award against the appellant and in favour of applicants Babu Singh, Dharam Singh and Dhood Singh, each of whom has filed separate claim petition. The claim of claimant Babu Singh was for Rs. 2,46,000.00, claim of Dharam Das was for Rs.1,75,000/- and claim of Dhood Singh was for Rs. 1,18,600.00. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 53,000.00 to claimant Babu Singh, Rs. 53,226.00 to Dharam Das and Rs. 20,000.00 to Dhood Singh.
(2.) Brief facts with respect to filing of these claim petitions are that the claimants were travelling in the bus No. RJ 14 P 2212 of the appellant. The bus was being driven by Nathu Ram and another bus No. RJ 14 P 2264 came with high speed and caused the accident. A criminal case No. 11/95 was registered and the police filed the challan. After narrating the facts in respect of the age, business and entitlement of the claimants, the claimants claimed the above amount. The appellant submitted reply to the claim petitions as well as the driver Nathu Ram also submitted reply to the claim petitions. The Tribunal framed issues and recorded statements of Babu Singh, Dharam Das and Dhood Singh and the non-claimant produced witness Nathu Ram. The documents were also placed on record.
(3.) The learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants. Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were decided in favour of the claimants partly and the tribunal determined the amounts of award. Aggrieved against the order of the learned tribunal, the appellants preferred these appeals. 3A. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed serious illegality in awarding the compensation for the goods which are alleged to have been carried by the claimants with the while travelling in the bus. According to the learned counsel for the appellants even the claim with respect to the goods of the passengers in not maintainable and, therefore, the award, which has been granted for the loss of goods, deserves to be set aside and also submitted that the claimants failed to prove the loss of goods and also failed to prove that they were carrying the goods with them.;