The intrinsic nature of service benefits like pension is that they are the deferred fruits of satisfactory service, industry, thrift, contributions, and foresight of the employee, and that these benefits should not be attributed entirely to the fortuitous circumstance of the accident and the resultant death.

S. N. BHARGAV, J.

( 1 ) JUDGEMENT :- This is an appeal u/s. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1939), against the Award dt. 27th Sept. , 1984 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants.

( 2 ) ON 25-4-1979 at about 9. 15 AM, deceased Sanwat Singh was going on a cycle from the side of Nasirabad town towards the Bus Stand, Nasirabad. He was on the left side of the road. When the deceased was near the speed breaker near the Bus Stand towards Nasirabad Town, Bus No. R. R. M. 1460 of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the rsrtc) overtook another bus of RSRTC which was passing the speed breaker. Both the buses were coming out of the bus stand and going towards Nasirabad Town. Madan Singh, the driver of the bus No. R. R. M. 1460, could not control the bus on account of careless, rash and negligent driving and hit the deceased Sanwat Singh who died on the spot. The deceaseds bicycle was completely damaged.

( 3 ) THE deceased Sanwat Singh was a Driver in Grade II and was drawing a sum of Rs. 375/- per month as on 25-4-1979.

( 4 ) THE claimant-appellants filed a claim petition u/s. 110 of the Act of 1939 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of death and Rs. 75,000/- on account of loss of income, totalling to Rs. 1,00,000/ -.

( 5 ) THE claim was contested by the respondents and they filed separate replies to the petition. The respondent RSRTC has denied paras 1 to 9 of the claim petition and with regard to para 10, it has been submitted that the accident did not take place as mentioned in that para. The driver was neither driving the bus at a fast speed nor was he at fault. Sanwat Singh of course sustained some injuries and further that the claim was exorbitant. It was also submitted that the RSRTC is not responsible to pay the compensation.

( 6 ) THE respondent No. 2, Madan Singh, driver filed a separate reply and submitted that the petitioner should prove as to how the death of Sanwat Singh had taken place but he denied paras 1 to 7 of the claim petition for want of knowledge. In para 8; it was asserted that no accident took place by Bus No. RRM 1460 on 25-4-79 at 9. 15 A. M. and that he has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad. With regard to para 10, it has been submitted that the deceased Sanwat Singh was not coming from Nasirabad direction nor the driver of Bus No. R. R. M. 1460 hit Sanwat Singh on account of rash and negligent driving and fast speed of the bus while over-taking another Bus. , nor the cycle of the deceased was crushed by the bus nor Sanwat Singh died as a result of the accident by bus No. R. R. M. 1460 and that the claim is excessive and the claimants are not entitled for the compensation as the accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus.

( 7 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues :-

( 8 ) THE claimant-appellants examined as many as 13 witnesses, whereas the respondents examined Shri Madan Singh, driver (respondent No. 2) and one more witness Shri Roodmal Saini. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after hearing the arguments and discussing the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the claimants have failed to prove as to with which bus the accident took place or that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by driver Madan Singh or that Madan Singh was driving the bus No. R. R. M.

( 9 ) 1460 and, therefore, decided Issue No. 1 against the claimant-appellants. The Tribunal decided Issue No. 2 also against the claimants and held that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation as they would be getting pension and, therefore, there will be no loss of income to the claimants. It is against these findings of the learned Tribunal that the p