The main legal point established is that the liability to pay compensation for a motor accident lies with the registered owner of the vehicle, as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This is an appeal against the award, dated 11.7.2002, passed, in MAC Case No. 34/1993, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang, determining a sum of Rs. 1,41,400, as compensation, payable to the claimant-appellant by respondent No. 3 herein, namely, Abdul Salam, who is the registered owner of the offending vehicle, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of making of the claim application.

2. The case of the claimant-appellant may, in brief, be described, thus:

The claimant's husband, Dhanbahadur Chhetry, used to receive, as a Chowkidar of Udalguri Girls' High School, Rs. 1,000 per month as his salary. On 16.2.1993, at about 10.15 a.m., when the claimant's husband was proceeding on the road, he was run over by a bus, bearing registration No. AMZ-6858, and died, the accident having taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The claimant, therefore, sought for compensation of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 only. Though this claim for compensation was made not only against Abdul Salam, who was registered owner of the said vehicle, but also against one Jalil Haque, who is said to have purchased the said bus, the fact remains that Md. Abdul Salam remained as the registered owner of the bus till the date of making of the claim application.

3. Having been served with notice, Md. Abdul Salam aforementioned, appeared in the claim proceeding and filed his written statement, wherein he submitted, inter alia, that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was under requisition by the State government, the order of requisition having been made by the SDO (Civil), Udalguri, and, hence, it is the State Government, who ought to have been fastened with the liability and made to pay the compensation, if any, to the claimant. Though the State of Assam was also impleaded as a party to the claim proceeding, it did not file any written statement. However, the SDO (Civil), who, too, stood impleaded as a party, submitted his written statement, his case being that the vehicle stood released on the day of the accident at about 10-30 a.m. and that the accident had taken place around the same time.

4. Having considered the evidence adduced by the claimant and the materials on record, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,41,400 as compensation, to the claimant and directed, as already indicated hereinabove, Md. Abdul Salam aforementioned, to pay the compensation to the claimant. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation so awarded and also contending that since the vehicle, at the relevant point of time, stood requisitioned by the State government, it is the State government, who ought to have been made liable to pay compensation to the claimant, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant, and Mr. P.S. Deka, learned State Government counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I have also heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Advocate General, Assam, and Mr. B. C. Das, learned senior counsel, as amicus curiae.

6. At the time of hearing of the present appeal, Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-appellant, has submitted that while the claimant has no grievance as regards the sum of Rs. 1,34,400, which has been determined by the learned Tribunal, as compensation for loss of dependency of the claimant-appellant, the claimant-appellant is aggrieved by the amount of funeral expenses and loss of consortium, which have been awarded as Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively.

7. While considering the above submissions made on behalf of the claimant-appellant, what may be noted is that there is no cogent evidence on record as regards the amount of funeral expenses incurred by the claimant-appellant. In such circumstances, the funeral expenses of Rs. 2,000 granted by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable. Turning to the loss of consortium, it; ma