The main legal point established is the assessment of compensation for dependents based on the deceased's income and the application of legal principles from the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant case law.

Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)- All these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since they all arise out of one accident and common questions of law and facts are involved in the same.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that an accident of Maruti Van No.HP-02-6325 took place on 24.6.2003. This vehicle was owned by Gupat Ram and being driven by his son Dharam Pal at the time of the accident. The vehicle fell into the river of Satluj. The driver survived as he fell outside the vehicle. The dead body of one person Dinesh was recovered from the bank of the river of Satluj. In the claim petitions, it was alleged that in fact, at the time of the accident, in addition to the driver Dharam Pal and Dinesh Kumar, deceased, three other persons Beli Ram, Karam Chand and Roshan Lal alias Sher Singh were also travelling in the vehicle. The stand taken by the owner and driver was that at the time of the accident, the only passenger was Dinesh and none of the deceased persons were travelling in the vehicle. The parties led evidence and after trial, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr held that in fact, there were five persons in the Maruti Van at the time when the accident occurred. It also held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Van and awarded compensation. It found that the vehicle was not insured and held the owner and driver jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence the present three appeals.

3. The main contention raised by Sh.Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal gravelly erred in holding that the three deceased persons were travelling in the vehicle in question. I have gone through the entire records of the case.

4. PW/1 is one Mohan Lal. He states that the parties are known to him and since the vehicle in question was not insured, he had acted as a mediator between the parties and Gupat Ram had agreed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to each of the claimants. Suggestion put to him in cross-examination is that no such negotiation took place.

5. PW/2 purports to be an eye witness and according to him, in his presence on 24.6.2003 respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle and he had seen Dinesh Kumar, Beli Ram, Karam Chand and Sher Singh in the said vehicle.

6. Similarly is the statement of RW/3 who states that he had seen the deceased persons in the vehicle.

7. On the other hand, RW/1 Dharam Pal states that only Dinesh was travelling in the vehicle. RW/4 states that no negotiation had taken place in his presence.

8. RW/6 states that he had seen the vehicle and on the date of the accident and at that time, only one person was in the vehicle. In cross-examination he states that he came to know about the accident on the third day. Even if the statements of the eyewitnesses are discounted, there are other grounds to hold that the deceased were travelling in the vehicle.

9. PW/6 Head Constable, Swarup Ram has proved on record the FIR No.106/2003. In the FIR, it is statedthat as per the investigation carried out, five people including the driver were travelling in the vehicle. This FIR was lodged within a couple of hours of the accident. The second important factor is that Beli Ram, one of the deceased was the real brother of Gupat Ram. The other persons who died were also related to the respondents. All three persons could not have vanished into thin air on one day. There is no explanation on behalf of the owner and driver of the vehicle who were closely related to the deceased especially to deceased Beli Ram as to in what circumstances these people are missing. The body of Sher Singh was recovered from Sunni, a few days later which supports the version of the petitioners that the deceased died in the accident. It is apparent that taking advantage of the fact that the bodies of the deceased were not recovered, the owner and the driver of the vehicle have set up this false case