Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner dated December 27, 1979, dismissing the claim petition filed by Smt. Sudershan Puri and her five sons and a daughter.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that Om Prakash Puri deceased was employed in the Central Warehouse Corporation as Junior Storage and Inspection Officer at its Warehouse at Sri Ganganagar in June, 1976 & he was drawing Rs. 880/ - as salary in the scale of Rs. 650 30 -740 -35 -880 -EB -40 960 besides Rs. 337.60 as dearness allowance. On June 9, 1976, at about 4.30 P.M., while Shri Om Prakasi Puri was coming on his scooter No. R.S.K. 1506 from towards Nehru Park to Padampur Chungi Road, he met an accident at the crossing of Chungi Road near the house of Dr. Gianchand Gurhaui with bus No. R S.G. 2157, which was owned by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). It is alleged by by the petitioner, who are the appellants before me, that the bus was driven by Amar Singh driver rashly and negligently, at an excessive speed and as a result of the collusion of the bus with the scooter of Shri Omprakash Puri, the later fell down on the spot and became unconscious. He was taken to the Civil Hospital, Ganganagar, but he died on June 26, 1975 as a result of the injuries sustained by him during the accident. The widow of Shri Omprakash Puri, Smt. Sudershan Puri, acting for herself and her four minor sons and another major son filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,85,475.04 as compensation for the loss suffered by them as also in respect of the expenses incurred by them on medicines etc. The learned Member of the Tribunal held that although a collusion had taken place between bus No. R S.G. 2157 and the scooter, which Shri Omprakash Puri was driving yet the claimants have failed to prove that the driver of the bus was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that if the claim petition would have succeeded, the petitioner would have been entitled to Rs, 46,000/ - as compensation. However, in view of the finding that the claimants have failed to prove that the driver was either rash or negligent while driving the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal, by its order dated December 27, 1979.
(3.) IN this appeal, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that there was no reason for the learned Member of the Tribunal to disbelieve the testimony of A.W. 2 Gianchand Gurhani and A.W. 3 Lalchand @ Lal Singh, who were the eye -witnesses of the occurrence, on the question that the driver was driving the bus at the time of the accident rashly and negligently. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal not only erred in dismissing the claim petition but it also erred in determining the amount of compensation which should have been awarded to the petitioner -appellants.;