1. A claim petition was preferred by Akbar Shah and one Zuliakha under the Motor Vehicle Act. This was with regard to an accident where Ghulam Hassan Shah age 30 years met with fatal injuries. He was travelling in vehicle as an employee of sheep owner whose sheep were being carried in the vehicle. Plea taken by the two claimants was that deceased was earning between Rs 5000-7000/- p.m. He used to get Rs 1200/- per trip. In a month he would make 5 to 6 trips. It was inthis manner income of deceased was projected in the claim petition at Rs 6000/- p.m. Total amount of compensation was claimed Rs. 6,40,000/-.

2. Further fact is that on 14.3.1997 an application was preferred by Mst Sakina Begum w/o Mohd Khaleel. She stated that Ghulam Hasan Shah was her son and therefore. She is also entitled to compensation. Statement of facts contained in the application dated 14.3.1997 i.e para 1 and 2 is as under:-

1. That applicant (petitioner) is mother of the applicant and could not join in petition previously.

2. That applicant request that she be joined as petitioner in the said claim petition and share of her claim be paid to her as the deceased was living with appliant at Karool and alongwith other petitioner and Mst Zulikha wd/o Ghulam Hassan R/o Manzmoh has been wedded outside the family now.

On this application a decision was taken on 23.9.1997. So far as respondent company is concerned it did not oppose Mst Sakina Begum being brought on record as claim petitioner. It was of the view that this is a matter between Mst Sakina Begum and other claimants and so far as Insurance company is concerned it was only

3. Application presented in this court on 14.3.1997 by one Mst Sakeena Begum wife of Mohd Khalil R/o Krole Tehsil for impleading as one of the petitioner in this case has not been objected to by counsel for Insurance company and Mr Saleem Raja Advo. has frankly concerned at bar that it is the matter between the petitioners and has no bearing on his client but his client Insurance company is only interested to contest the claim.

Be the facts as they are, as counsel for the petitioners Mr. A.R Mushtaq Advocate has not objected to the petition of Mst Sakeena Begum wife of Mohd Khalil R/o Karole Teh. Ramban the petitioner Mst Sakeen Begum is therefore added as respondent no: 4 in this petition.

4. Issues were framed. These issues are also being reproduced below:

1. Whether the death of Ghulam Hussain was caused at Place near Heeranagar at National High way on 31.5.96 because of rash and negligent driving of one Truck no: Hr-29-A/7692 by its driver Sohan Singh respondent 3 who was under the employment of respondent no: 2 and the vehicle was insured with respondent no:1 ? OPP

2. On proof of issue no:1 to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. In what proportion the petitioners and respondent 4 are entitled to compensation? OPP

4. Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and had not paid the fare thus Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation? OPR-1

5. Relief to what the parties are entitled to?

5. Yet another application came to be filed. This was by Sumandar Shah. He stated that Ghulam Hasan Shah was his son and therefore, this factor should be taken note of. He was arrayed as respondent. So far as Sakeena Begum is concerned, Tribunal had directed the office to correct the memo of parties. This correction was not carried out. She was not shown as petitioner. She was required to be shown as petitioner in terms of interim order passed by the Tribunal. Contents of that order have been noticed above. She has been shown as a respondent.

6. Tribunal proceeded to decide the issue. Evidence which has come on the record be taken note of.

One Ahmed Ganai appeared in the witness box and this witness stated that the deceased used to generate income of Rs1400/- per trip. He stated that in a month 5 to 6 trips used to be undertaken by the deceased. To the same effect is the statement of Sakina

Click Here to Read the rest of this document