The quantum of compensation under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is determined by the pecuniary loss suffered by the petitioners as a result of the death of the deceased.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). The appellants in F. A. O. No. 157 of 1968 are the petitioners before the Tribunal and the appellants in F. A. O. No. 136 of 1968 are the respondents before the Tribunal. They will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioners and respondents respectively.

( 2 ) THE petitioners filed an application before the Tribunal under section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) claiming an amount of Rs. 25,000. 00 by way of compensation for the death of their father, Trikha Ram, who is said to have been killed in a motor accident on March 5, 1965. According to the petitioners, the deceased Trikha Ram was going on a cycle on the Magazine Road at about 8. 45 P. M. on 5. 3. 1965. When he approached a culvert on the road, a truck, bearing registration No. DLG 9035, driven by the first respondent, came from the opposite direction at a fast speed and knocked down the deceased and ran over him. The deceased sustained injuries as a result of this accident and succumbed to these injuries a little later. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2, being the owner of the truck, was also liable to pay compensation. With regard to the quantum of compensation the petitioner alleged that the deceased was a vegetable seller earning about Rs. 7. 00 to 8. 00 per day. He was aged 50 years at the time of the accident. The petitioners who are the legal representatives of the deceased estimated the loss sustained by them by the death of the deceased in the accident at Rs. 25,000. 00 and claimed the amount from the respondents by way of compensation.

( 3 ) THE petition was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the accident occured not due to any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the truck but due to the negligence of the deceased himself inasmuch as the deceased was suffering from cataract and was dazzled by the lights of the lorry and knocked against the side of the culvert and fell down in front of the truck.

( 4 ) THE following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

1. Whether the accident resulting in the death of Trikha Ram was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1 ? 2. Whether the petitioners are legal representatives of the deceased and are entitled to claim the compensation ? 3. Whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence ? 4. To what amount, if any, are the. petitioners entitled ? 5. Relief.

( 5 ) THE petitioners examined a number of witnesses to prove the manner in which the accident occurred and also the earning capacity of the deceased. The respondents did not adduce any oral evidence but contented themselves by filing a certified copy of the judgment of Mr. R. K. Goswami, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, in criminal Case No. 120/2 of 24. 6. 1965 to prove that the driver of the lorry respondent No. 1 was prosecuted under section 340 A of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the same accident, but was acquitted by the Court.

( 6 ) ON a consideration of this evidence the learned Tribunal held issue Nos. 1,2 and 3 in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents and on issue Nos. 4 and 5 awarded a sum of Rs. 8,640. 00 by way of compensation in favour of the petitioners. The respondents have filed one of the appeals challenging the said judgment of the learned Tribunal and the petitioners also have filed the other appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. It may, at this stage, be said that the Oriental Finance and General Insurance Company which had joined in filing the appeal F. A. O. 136 of 1968 did not press the appeal and the appeal was, therefore, dismissed so far as the Insurance Company was concerned. It is the appeal filed by the second respondent who is the owner of the