JASRAJ CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THESE four appeals and to cross objections are directed against the Award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jodhpur dated 6. 4. 1985 in MACT Cases No. 55/79 and 56/79. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Case No. 55/79 has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased Gopichand whereas MACT Case No. 56/79 has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased Shankerlal. Gopichand happens to be the son of deceased Shankerlal.
(2.) AS both MACT Cases No. 55/79 and 56/79 were tried together and were disposed of by a common order and raise common question, I propose to decide all these four appeals and two cross-objections simultaneously by common order. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these four appeals and two cross-objections briefly stated are : that on 21. 5. 1979 at about 4. 45 PM Gopichand and his father Shankerlal were going on a Cycle from Riktiya-Bheruji-Ka, Chauraya towards residency road. Gopichand was driving the cycle whereas Shankerlal was sitting on the pillion seat of the cycle. The truck bearing No. RJT 4061 which was driven by Iqbal Mohd. it was going at a fast speed, and was driven rashly and negligently. On seeing this, Gopichand left the road and came in Kutchha but still the truck driver brought his vehicle in the wrong side and crushed and injured them by that truck. Shankerlal was thrown away with the impact of the truck whereas Gopichand was crushed under the truck and died at the spot. Shankerlal was seriously injured and was shifted to the Hospital, where he died at about 6. 30 PM. It is alleged that the registered owner of this truck is Jaymal singh. who got it insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd. , Chopasani Road, Jodhpur. It is not disputed that this truck was insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd. Chopasani Road, Jodhpur and at the relevant time. Iqbal Mohd. was driving this truck. The accident has also not been disputed by Iqbal Mohd. as also by Ranjeetmal Haran, the present owner of this vehicle. Shri Ranjeetmal Haran has stated that he is the power of attorney holder of this vehicle on behalf of Jaymalsingh and the claim about the loss caused to this truck on account of this accident has been paid to him i. e. Jaymal singh by the Insurance Company and so, the Insurance is still in existence and is very much effective. As regards the accident, it has been claimed that the truck was driven at a very slow and moderate speed. The accident has occurred on account of the negligent driving of the cycle by Shri Gopichand, who tost his balance and collided against the truck. Shri Ranjeetmal Haran has therefore, claimed that no compensation can be claimed from him as this accident is not the result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by Iqbal Mohd. The registered owner of the truck Shri Jaymal Singh has stated that he does not know about the accident and the driver Iqbal Mohd. was his his servant at the time of the accident and so, Iqbal Mohd. was not driving thetruck on his authority and, therefore, he has nothing to do with the accident Similar plea has been taken by the Insurance Company. The claimants have, however, claimed that at the time of the accident, deceased Shankerlal was working as a Peon in the Office of the Director, Agricultural Department, Jodhpur and was drawing a salary of Rs. 350/-per month. He was a barber by caste and was earning Rs. 150/-per month by doing part-time job of a barber : i. e. hair cutting profession. The claimants have, therefore, claimed that they are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of his death in this accident, Rs. 45,000/- have been claimed on account of the loss of income and Rs. 5,000/- have been claimed on account of the mental shock and agony caused to Shankerlal as he received certain serious bodily injuries, and was in great mental and physical agony before his death. As regards deceased Gopichand, it has been stated that he was a Electrician and was doing electric decoration work at the time of the marriages and other functions. He was also selling Ice Cream (Kulfi), tea and Sugarcane Juice and earning about Rs. 400/-per month. His age at the time of his death was 21 years. He was married on 17. 4. 1979. Rs. 70,000/-have been claimed on account of the mental shock and agony and economic loss to the family due to the death of Gopichand and Rs- 5,000/- have been claimed on account of the loss of consortium by Mst. Santosh.
(3.) CERTAIN issues were framed after consolidation of both these claim cases and thereafter, the evidence was recorded on behalf of the claimants. No body was examined on behalf of the non-applicants and hence, after hearing the parties the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Iqbal Mohd. and, therefore, issue No. 1. was decided in favour of the claimants and against the non-applicants. As regards issue no. 2, it has been held that at the time of the accident, Iqbal Mohd. was in the service of Shri Ranjeetmal Haran but he was not in the employment of Shri Jaymal Singh. As regards issue No. 3, it has been held held Mst. Santosh, Mst. Bhanwari, Mst. Hulasidevi and deceased Gopi-chand's son Ramkishore were dependent on the deceased persons. Nemichand and Smt. Durga were living separately from the deceased persons. The learned Tribunal has, therefore, held that only Mst. Santosh, Mst. Bhanwari, Mst. Hulasi Devi and Ramkishore are entitled to compensation. Nemichand and Smt. Durga were held to be not entitled to compensation, on account of these two accidental deaths. The learned Tribunal has held that claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 28,800/-on account of the death of deceased Shankerlal and Rs. 48,000/- on account of the death of deceased Gopichand. As regards issue No. 4, it has been held that out of the compensation awarded on the death of deceased Shankerlal, Smt. Bhanwari will get Rs. 14,000/- &mst. Hulasi, Mst. Santosh and Ramkishore will get Rs. 6,000/- 4,000/- and 4,800/-respectively whereas on account of the death of Gopichand, Smt. Santosh will get Rs. 20,000/-and Mst. Bhanwari, Hulasi Devi and Ramkishore will get Rs. 4,000/-, 4,000/-and 20,000/- respectively. The claims were accordingly decreed against non-applicants No. 1 and 2 viz. , Iqbal Mohd, and Ranjeetmal Haran. However, the claims were dismissed against non-applicants No. 3 and 4 viz. , Jaymalsingh and New India Insurance Company Ltd. Jodhpur. Aggrieved against this award passed in both these claims petitions, these four appeals and two cross objections have been filed. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have critically gone through the record of the case. ;