( 1 ) SINCE both the appeals arise out of the same award, they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, parties to the appeals would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition.

( 2 ) CLAIMANTS, who are the widow, children and parents of nageswara Rao (the deceased) filed the claim petition alleging that when the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on the scooter abw 5015 belonging to the second respondent, being driven by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent, it dashed against the bullock cart belonging to the 5th respondent being driven by the 4th respondent in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the deceased falling down from the scooter and receiving injuries and letter succumbing to those injuries. Since the deceased was aged about 38 years and was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month from various sources, they are entitled to Rs. 9,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

( 3 ) THE case of the second respondent, who is the owner of the scooter bearing No. ABW 5015, as disposed from his counter, which was adopted by the first respondent, is that as his scooter was insured with the third respondent from 25. 06. 1992 to 24. 06. 1993, and since first respondent was having a valid and subsisting driving licence by the date of accident, and since the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the first respondent he need not pay any compensation.

( 4 ) THIRD respondent filed its counter putting the appellants to proof of the averments in the petition.

( 5 ) 4th respondent filed a counter, which was adopted by the 5th respondent, denying the allegation that, he was driving the bullock cart in a rash and negligent manner and contending that he is not a necessary or proper party to the petition.

( 6 ) IN support of their case, claimants examined the wife of the deceased i. e. first claimant as P. W. 1 and the first respondent as p. W. 2 and marked Exs. A. 1 to A. 9. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5. Third respondent examined one witness as R. W. 1. Ex. B. 1 was marked by consent. The Tribunal, holding that the: accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the first respondent, awarded Rs. 3,09,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by the award passed against it, third respondent preferred c. M. A. No. 1685 of 1998; and dissatisfied by the compensation awarded to them, claimants C. M. A. No. 3050 of 2000.

( 7 ) THE point for consideration is to what compensation are the appellants entitled to and from whom? point :

( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the Tribunal was in error in not keeping in view the fact that the deceased was a partner in a business concern and was who also running poultry farm while arriving at the compensation payable to the claimants and contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case the compensation claimed by the claimants is just and reasonable.

( 9 ) IN my considered opinion, the appeal of the claimants has no merit. In fact they should have felt happy that for the Tribunal recorded a finding that they are entitled to compensation under fault liability, though the evidence on record does not establish the negligence on the part of the first respondent while driving the scooter of the second respondent with the deceased as his pillion rider. Since P. W. 1 was not a whom him accident have enduce in number naturally deciding his point the evidence of P. W. 2, the first respondent, who was driving the scooter with the deceased as his pillar aidsat the time of accident, is that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the 4th respondent but not due to his negligence. In the claim petition it is alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of a Bullock Cart iby the 4th respondent. Since bullock Cart is not a m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document