The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the R. S. R. T. C. for the negligent driving of the bus and the principles of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

MANAK MOHTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12. 12. 1994 passed by the Judge, motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nohar camp at Bhadra in M. A. C. T. Case No. 84 of 1992, whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and has awarded a sum of Rs. 78,000 plus interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition in favour of the claimants-respondents and against the non-claimants-appellants.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 28. 6. 1992 a bus bearing no. RJ 14-P 1062, which belonged to the r. S. R. T. C. , Sriganganagar Depot was plying on Bhadra-Bikaner route. As per the facts stated in the claim petition, Khanu sat on the top of the bus with prior permission of the driver. One Rai Singh, son of lalchand Jat, resident of village Kunji, tehsil Bhadra and other persons were also sitting on the top of the bus. At Kunji Bus stand, they came into contact with live electric wires, as a result of which, Khanu died and other persons received injuries due to touch of live electric wires. The said bus was being driven by Bhagwant Singh rashly and negligently without taking care of the electric wires. At the time of accident, the deceased Khanu was 18 years old and he was earning Rs. 100 per day by selling vegetables. Due to untimely death of Khanu, no male member was left in the family to look after his old parents. It was stated that his parents were dependent on the income of deceased Khanu. The parents of the deceased filed a claim petition for awarding compensation to the tune of rs. 16,00,000 under different heads before the learned Tribunal at Nohar.

( 3 ) A reply to the claim petition was filed on behalf of the non-claimants-appellant nos. 1 and 2. The Corporation denied the averments made in the claim petition and also stated that the deceased sat on the top of the bus on his own will. No permission was sought in this respect. The deceased was also not having ticket with him. The accident took place due to negligence of the deceased. In the alternative, it was submitted that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of the deceased. It was further stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was 14-15 years of age and he was not an earning member. It was prayed that R. S. R. T. C. was not liable to pay compensation. The reply filed on behalf of non-claimant-respondent No. 3, bhagwant Singh, driver of the concerned bus supported the contentions made by the non-claimants-appellant Nos. 1 and 2. Further it was denied that the deceased sat on the top of the bus with permission of the bus driver. Rest of the averments made in the claim petition were denied for want of knowledge. It was prayed that the claim petition may be rejected.

( 4 ) ON the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (Omitted as in vernacular)

( 5 ) FROM the side of claimants, statements of Jamal Deen, AW 1; Nabi Rasool, aw 2; Rai Singh, AW 3 and Brahmanand, aw 4 were got recorded and certain documents were produced, i. e. , investigation report, Exh. 1; post-mortem report, Exh. 2; and site inspection note, Exh. 3. No documentary or oral evidence was produced on behalf of non-claimants.

( 6 ) AT the conclusion of trial, the learned judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, nohar held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus of r. S. R. T. C. and as a result of the accident khanu died. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 78,000 to parents of the deceased vide its judgment and award dated 12. 12. 1994 in the manner stated above.

( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the non-claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal for setting aside the judgment and award passed against the R. S. R. T. C. After getting the copy of appeal, the claimants (parents of the deceased) also filed cross-objection for the enhancement of compensation amo