JUDGMENT

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, counsel appearing for the appellants.

2. Heard Mr. G. C. Jha, counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3- Insurance Company.

3. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

4. Counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submits that this appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of compensation which has been awarded by the learned court below.

5. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants arising out of judgment and award dated 05.03.2003 passed by Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 102 of 1992, wherein claim under the provisions of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been disposed of by allowing a sum of Rs. 1,55,296/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till payment after deducting the amount paid, if any. Compensation was to be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of award, failing which it was directed that interest at the rate of 12% per annum would be payable. There is no dispute that after the passing of the impugned judgment and award, the amount which was payable by the respondent Insurance Company was deposited and the impugned award has been complied with so far as the insurance company is concerned.

6. Counsel for the appellants submits that the amount which was to be paid by the owner of the truck to the extent of 50% of the total compensation amount, has not yet been paid by the private respondents herein, who are not even appearing in this case today.

7. Compensation Case No. 102 of 1992 was filed by the claimants for realization of the compensation amount on account of death of Shamshu Ansari @ Shamshul Haque in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants are the widow, children and parents of the deceased.

8. The counsel for the appellants also submits that arising out of the same accident, a number of compensation cases were instituted as a large number of persons had died and suffered injuries. As various compensation cases arose out of the same accident, all such cases were amalgamated and heard together. However, this appeal is confined to Compensation Case No. 102 of 1992.

9. Counsel submits that on 17.05.1992, the deceased in all the compensation cases as well as injured were travelling in the bus bearing registration no. BR-14M-0350 being driven rashly and negligently in high speed. When the said bus reached near State Bank of India, Branch near Rangamati, from opposite direction a truck bearing no. BIN-9329 was coming in a high speed driven rashly and negligently and the two vehicles collided with each other. As a result of the said collusion, several persons received grievous injuries and some died on the spot. Accordingly, Tamar P.S. Case No. 52 of 1992 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 335 of 1992 was instituted. All the claimants claimed to be dependent upon the income of the deceased and the injured, who sustained injuries in the said accident. Owner of the bus as well as the owner of the truck had appeared and the owner of the bus claimed that the vehicle was insured by the insurance company and further took a stand that the accident was due to fault of the driver of the truck. The bus was covered by the insurance policy, which was valid for the period from 24.06.1991 till 23.06.1992 and accordingly, on the date of accident, the bus was duly insured.

10. In Compensation Case No. 102 of 1992, the wife of the deceased namely, Naseeban Bibi and her son namely, Mozammil Ansari were examined. The wife, inter alia ,deposed that the deceased was having income of 3,500/- per month and the son, inter alia, deposed that his father was working as a grinder in a glass factory and was getting a salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month.

11. The learned court below framed the following issues for consideration:

"I. Whethe