The financial benefits of compassionate employment should not be deducted from the compensation amount payable by the tort feasor.

ORDER :

1. In the instant appeal, the appellants have thrown challenge to award dated 15.12.2014 (for short “the impugned award”) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udhampur (for short “the Tribunal”) in the claim petition titled as “Sandhya Devi and others Vs Shoukat Ali and another.”

2. Facts emerging from the record reveal that one Mulkh Raj, S/o Mohan Lal, R/o Manpa, Udhampur, aged 42 years (for short “the deceased”), working as a Mazdoor/Central Govt. employee while travelling in a tractor trolley bearing registration No. JK14/3768 (for short “the offending vehicle”) sustained injuries on account of fall therefrom at Badali, resulting into multiple injuries to him and later on his death at the Military Hospital, Udhampur, whereupon the claimants-his legal heirs including his wife – Sandhya Devi/respondents 1 to 7 herein filed a claim petition for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”).

3. The claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein in the said claim petition impleaded the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Shoukat Ali as a respondent/being respondent 8 herein. The Tribunal after entertaining the claim petition summoned the above named respondent. On 11.05.2011 Advocate Sunil Kumar appeared on behalf of the respondent. On 19.07.2011 an application came to be filed by the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein for impleadment of the owner of the vehicle, namely, Pritam Sharma, to which the counsel for the respondent/driver did not object to, as a consequence whereof on 23.09.2011 said Pritam Sharma came to be impleaded as a party respondent too in the claim petition and the said newly substituted respondent came to be summoned by the Tribunal. On 08.02.2012, Advocate Sunil Sharma appeared on behalf of the newly substituted respondent-Pritam Sharma and sought time to file objections and also power of attorney on his behalf. The said counsel continued to appear on behalf of the said respondent/owner and appeared in the subsequent proceedings as well as on 28.03.2012 & on 11.06.2012, seeking time to file objections as also the power of attorney.

4. On 03.08.2012, the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein yet again filed another application for amendment of the claim petition and as a consequence of the non-appearance of the respondents in the claim petition and their failure to file objections to the amendment application, the Tribunal in terms of order dated 05.04.2013 allowed the application and substituted the respondent 2- Pritam Sharma by one Amar Nath, S/o Ram Saran, R/o Village Manpa, as the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein have had stated in the amendment application that said Amar Nath infact is the owner of the offending vehicle and not Pritam Sharma.

5. On 05.04.2013 itself, the Tribunal directed issuance of a notice to the newly substituted respondent Amar Nath, whereafter on 12.07.2013 one Advocate Sunil Thappa appeared on his behalf and sought time for filing objections. Respondent 1 in the claim petition, in the meantime, being the driver of the offending vehicle have had been set ex-parte. On 21.10.2013, Advocate Sunil Sharma appeared on behalf of the respondent 2/the newly substituted owner, filed Vakalatnama as also the objections to the claim petition, whereafter the Tribunal on 03.01.2014 on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties framed the following issues:-

1. Whether deceased, Mulkh Raj in a road traffic accident which was caused on 12.12.10 at Badali, Udhampur by respondent No.1 on account of the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (Tractor Trolly) No.JK14/3768 when deceased was traveling alongwith cement bags in offending vehicle? OPP

2. If issue Noll is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what effect arid from whom? OPP

3. Relief. OP parties.

6. On account of continuous non-appearance of the respondent 2 and his counsel, the Tribunal set the respondent 2 as well ex-pa