Only the wife, husband, parent, and child of the deceased are entitled to receive compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.

( 1 ) MANMOHAN Kumar, aged about 28 years, is said to have been knocked down by a D. T. U. bus No. DLP. 720 on 27th January 1962 on the Pusa Road near Telephone Exchange New Delhi. He sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. An application under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Act) was filed in the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Tribunal) by his father and his three brothers claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 for the death of the deceased in the motor accident. According to the averments in this application, the deceased was travelling on the pillion seat of his scooter No DL. N 3772, driven by one Mohan Lal. The scooter was stopped opposite to Subzimandi on the Pus Road and both the deceased as well as the scooter driver got down from the scooter and while the deceased was standing on the right side of the scooter, a D. T. U. bus bearing No. DLP 720 came at a fast speed and knocked down the deceased causing serious injuries to him as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. The accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus. It was further averred in this application that the deceased was of 28 years of age at the time of the accident. He was a Matriculate from the Punjab University and had also passed the National Certification Examination incommercial Art and had obtained certificate of merit for his proficiency inphotography. The decsased was earning Rs. 1,000. 00 P. M. from his profession as a photographer and he was expected to earn much more in the years to come if he had lived The applicants, therefore, estimated the loss sustained by them by the untimely death of the deceased at Rs. 1,50,000. 00 and claimed this amount from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as well as from Shri Raj Singh who was said to have been driving the bus at the time of the accident.

( 2 ) THE application was resisted by the respondents. It was denied that the accident occurred due to the rashness or negligence of the driver of the bus. It was alleged that the bus was being driven carefully at that time and that when the driver of the bus found that the scooter was on the extreme left side of the road and the scooter driver was trying to start the scooter, he thought it safe to overlake the stationary scooter ; but when the, bus was in the process of overtaking the scooter the driver of the scooter suddenly started the scooter and lest control over the scooter and the deceased, who was sitting on the pillion, fell down on the right side and struck against the left rear portion of the bus as a result of which he received certain injuries. It was, therefore, alleged that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the driver of the scooter as well as of the deceased. The respondents also denied that the deceased was earning Rs- 1000. 00 P. M. The respondents, therefore, denied their liability to pay any amount to the petitioners by way of compensation.

THE learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the vehicles of respondent No. 1 are exempt from the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act ? 2. Whether this application is not maintainable for want to notice under Section 478 of the Municipal Corporation Act ? 3. Whether this application is barred by limitation ? 4. Whether Manmohan Kumar died in an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of bus No. DLP 720 at 1. 15 P. M. on Pusa Road near Telephone Exchange, New Delhi ? 5. To what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom ? 6. Whether the petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased ? 7. Whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence ? If so, to what effect ? 8. Relief

( 3 ) ISSUES Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were riot pressed by the respondents at the time of the trial of the suit and were therefore decided against the respondents and in favour of the petiti