( 1 ) THE Delhi Transport Corporation assails an order dated 27th July, 1995 passed by learned MACT in Case No. 19/83 awarding compensation of Rs. 3,07,000/- in favour of respondents/claimants on account of the death of Shri ashok Kumar husband of the claimant/respondent No. 1 in an accident with a DTC bus on 23. 8. 1982.

( 2 ). I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3. I have gone through the Trial Court Records. None has appeared for respondent No. 4, the driver of the offending vehicle.

( 3 ). The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are that respondents 1,2 and 3 filed a claim petition under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicle act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) against the appellant and respondent No. 4 alleging that on 23. 8. 1982 at about 9. 50 p. m. when Ashok Kumar aged about 27 years was going on his two wheeler scooter, the DTC bus No. DHP 2717 which was being driven by respondent No. 4 in a rash and negligent manner struck against his scooter as a result of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was removed to hospital where he was declared dead. The respondents 1,2 and 3, the widow, child and father of the deceased alleged that the deceased was running a tea stall and his income was about Rs. 1,000/- per month. They claimed compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs with interest.

( 4 ). The appellant and respondent No. 4 filed a joint written statement in which the accident was admitted but it was denied that it was on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent No. 4. The accident was stated to be on account of the fast speed on which the deceased was driving his two wheeler scooter. The income of the deceased as well as the dependency of respondents 1,2, and 3 upon him was also disputed.

( 5 ). On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed following issues: (1) Whether thee deceased Sh. Ashok Kumar received fatal injuries in the accident on 23. 8. 1982 due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. DHP-2717 on the part of respondent No. 1? (2) Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of scooter on the part of the deceased himself, so what is its effect? (3) Whether the petitioners are the real representatives of the deceased (4) To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled and from whom? (5) Relief.

( 6 ). In support of their case the respondents/claimants examined PW 1 Dr. Chander Kant to prove post mortem report Ex. PW I/a, PW 2, Hari Chand an eyewitness, pw 3 Smt. Deep Kanta widow of the deceased and FW 4 Head Constable sham Lal who proved a copy of the FIR Ex. PW 4/1. The respondents in their defence examined PW 1 Lal Chand who deposed that respondent No. 1, the driver of the offending bus, had left the appellant s service in tile year 1988. In his cross- examination he admitted that respondent No. 4 had been charge-sheeted for the accident in question and was removed from service due to the accident in question. RW 2 Zile Singh, the Conductor of the offending bus, deposed that at the time of the accident a scootrist had come from Ashram side and turned towards right as a result of which he hit the bus, fell down and sustained injuries.

( 7 ). Learned Tribunal after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the Accidents in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of me offending bus. He calculated the compensation by following the principles laid down by the Apex court in General Manager, Kerala State Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, reported in I (1994) ACC 346 (SC)=1994 ACT page 1, and passed an award of Rs. 3,07. 000/- in favour of the respondents 1,2 and 3.

( 8 ). Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned tribunal had erred in holding that the Accidents in question was on account