The main legal point established in the judgment is that in motor accident claim cases, evidence should not be scrutinized in the same manner as in civil or criminal cases, and that the tribunal should evolve its own procedure based on principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, arising out of the common award dated 7.10.1992, rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal, whereby the Claim Petition No. 27 of 1989/103 of 1992 was partly allowed and compensation, in the sum of Rs. 25,000, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the same was granted whereas Claim Petition No. 26 of 1989/104 of 1992 was dismissed.

2. The facts of Claim Petition No. 27 of 1989/103 of 1992 are that on 2.5.1989, the claimant No. 3, namely, Vikram Singh, was driving tractor No. HYM 651, attached with trolley loaded with wheat and was going from Ambala towards Nilokheri for unloading the same at the Nilokheri Grain Market and when he reached near Nilokheri, a signal was given for turning the tractor towards the right hand side of the road. The tractor had crossed the road and reached the unmetalled portion of the road when the bus No. DEP 9640, being driven rashly and negligently by Tarsem Singh, respondent No. 1, came from the opposite direction, i.e., from the side of Karnal and hit the tractor-trolley in the middle, as a result whereof, the hook of the trolley got broken and the tractor was dragged to some distance. In that process, Sukhdev Singh one of the occupants of the trolley fell down on G.T. Road and was crushed under the wheels of the aforesaid bus, resulting into his death at the spot. It was stated that Sukhdev Singh was an agriculturist and a dairy farmer aged about 45 years at the time of his death and his monthly income was Rs. 3,000. Gurdeep Kaur, widow; Shingara Singh and Vikram Singh, sons of Sukhdev Singh deceased, being his legal heirs, claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of the death of Sukhdev Singh, as they stated that they were dependent upon him.

3. In Claim Petition No. 26 of 1989/104 of 1992, Gurdeep Kaur, widow of Sukhdev Singh deceased, claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 20,000 on account of the damage caused to the tractor-trolley in the aforesaid accident.

4. Both the claim applications were contested by the respondents. In the joint written statements, filed in both the cases separately, the date, time and place of accident were admitted. It was denied that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus referred to hereinbefore by Tarsem Singh, respondent No. 1, driver thereof. On the other hand, it was stated that the bus was being driven at a moderate speed on the left side of the road. It was further stated that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trolley, as he suddenly turned the same towards the wrong side, as a result whereof, it struck with the bus. It was further stated that Tarsem Singh, respondent No. 1, driver of the bus tried to avoid the accident but in vain. It was pleaded that the claimants had no cause of action to file the claim petitions and that the claim petitions were not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the claim petitions were bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further pleaded that the claimants in Claim Petition No. 103 of 1992 (old No. 27 of 1989) were estopped from filing the same by their own act and conduct. The remaining averments were denied.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following consolidated issues were framed in both the claim petitions by the Tribunal:

"(1) Whether Gurdeep Kaur and two others, i.e., the claimants in M.A.C.T. Case No. 27 of 1989 are the only legal heirs of Sukhdev Singh deceased? OPP

(2) Whether the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of bus No. DEP 9640 by its driver? OPP

(3) Whether the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trolley by its driver? OPP

(4) To how much amount of compensation are the claimants in M.A.C.T. Case No. 27 of 1989 entitled to get and from whom? OPP

(5) To how much amount of