( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise from a common judgment delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) touching the same facts, cause of action and question of law. Hence taken up together and disposed of by this order.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the challenge to the impugned judgment by the owner of the truck in FAO 24 of 1983 and by the legal heirs of the deceased in FAO 50 of 1983 we must have a look at the facts of this case.

( 3 ) THE deceased, Ishwar Singh, aged about 32 years was a Sub-Inspector in Police. On 5th June, 1976 at about 8. 45 p. m. he was going on a two wheeler scooter, hardly had he reached near Railway Bridge, Rani Bagh, Delhi, a truck bearing No. DLL-5885 driven rashly and negligently by respondent, Gurdial Singh, came from behind and hit his scooter. As a result of this impact created by the said truck, Ishwar Singh fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was removed to Irwin Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. At the time of his death, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,000. 00 (Rupees one thousand ). He left behind his widow, two minor sons and two minor daughters, an unborn child and his mother. His legal heirs filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (for short the Act ) which was listed as Suit No. 344 of 1976 wherein they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000. 00.

( 4 ) THE claim petition was contested by the owner of the truck, Mr. Madan Lal, as well as by the driver of the truck, Mr. Gurdial Singh. The United India Fire and General Insurance Company contested the petition on two grounds, namely, limited liability and that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving licence. The owner took the plea that his truck was not involved in the accident.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, held that Mr. Gurdial Singh, driver of the truck, was negligent and that the accident was caused with the truck bearing No. DLL-5885 driven by Mr. Gurdial Singh. The Tribunal assessed the dependency loss to the family of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 654. 00 per month. It applied the multiplier of 16 years and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,570. 00. Out of this amount, the Tribunal deducted Rs. 41,000. 00 on account of family pension and ordered further deduction at the rate of 15 per cent on account of lump-sum payment. After deducting the deductions ordered by the Tribunal, the net compensation worked out to Rs. 71,545. 00. The Insurance Company s liability was fixed at Rs. 50,000. 00 and the balance was to be paid by the truck owner and the driver. It was further stipulated in the impugned order that if the awarded amount was not paid within three months, then the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by this order, the claimants have filed the appeal listed as FAO 50 of 1983, asking for enhancement of compensation. The owner of the truck, Mr. Madan Lal, also felt aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal because he alleges his truck was not involved in the accident. He has filed the appeal which is listed as FAO 24 of 1983. He has prayed for quashing of the award against him. FAO. No. 24/83 :

( 7 ) THE point raised in the appeal filed by the owner of the truck is; whether on the basis of the evidence available on record could the Tribunal hold that the truck was involved in the accident? Submission of the appellant that there is no evidence to connect his truck with the accident, to my mind, is unfounded. Perusal of the record shows that Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of eye-witnesses and the letter written by this appellant Exhibit PW-1/d concluded that the accident was caused by the truck bearing No. DLL-5885 which was driven by Gurdial Singh, the respondent. In this regard reference can be made to the testimony of Sub-Inspector, Om Dutt, the Investigating Officer of the case. Perusal of his testimony show that after having