The judgment establishes the liability of the truck driver for causing the accident and affirms the entitlement of the claimants to compensation for the injuries sustained and the resulting death.

M. M. Kumar, J.

1. The State of Haryana has filed the instant appeal under Section 110 D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 challenging the award dated 13/11/1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind. One sukhpal had suffered injuries and the original claim petition was filed by him. However, during the trial, Sukhpal died and his widow Smt. Kamla, mother Smt. Sarti and his seven children were impleaded as his legal representatives.

2. On 9.1.1987 Sukhpal boarded Bus No. HYA 7859 from his village Khanda in order to visit village Igarh. A truck bearing No. HRJ 1009 driven by one Raj Singh, respondent no.10, came from Jind side when the Bus bearing No. HYA 7859 had reached near the village Igrah. The offending truck was being driven in the middle of the road in a rash and negligent manner which collided with the driver side of the bus resulting into multiple injuries to deceased Sukhpal and some others. The case of the appellants is that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Raj Singh , truck driver, respondent no.10.

3. The stand of the appellants is that the claim petition was time barred having been filed after a period of one year, two months and twelve days of the accident. It was further asserted that the Sub Divisional engineer- appellant No.2 is a juristic person and no petition was competent against it. It was further asserted by respondent no.10 in a separate written statement that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The maintainability of the petition was disputed by setting up the plea that the driver of the bus was a necessary party and in his absence it could not be pursued. It was also the plea of the appellants that deceased Sukhpal had died his natural death and there was no connection with the injuries suffered by him in the accident.

4. On the issue whether the deceased Sukhpal had sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver Raj Singh , respondent no.10, the Tribunal has concluded as under:

"it is held, thus that the petitioners had been able to prove that the deceased Sukhpal sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the truck No. HRJ 1009 by respondent no.3. This issue shall stand disposed of, thus, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. "

On the other issue as to whether the petitioner has died his natural death or on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident, the Tribunal has held as under:

"the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the deceased had died after about six months of his discharge from the hospital and it could not, thus be said that he had died as a result of the injuries received in the accident. "

5. "the argument is oblivious to the extent of disability found by the Medical Officers on the person of Sukhpal. There is evidence on the file (it is asserted in the petition itself) that he was 55 years of age. That is not such age where it could be said that the deceased had died a natural death. There is no material on the file to prove that any other injury or ailment intervened the impugned accident and the death of Sukhpal. In the circumstances of the case, only inference is that he died as a result of the injuries received in the impugned accident. This issue shall stand, thus disposed of in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. "

6. In view of the categorical findings, the Tribunal proceeded to ascertain the income of the deceased and the dependency of the claimantrespondents. On the basis of the statement made by Ms. Kamla, PW2, widow of the deceased Sukhpal, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that her husband was earning Rs.1,000.00 p. m. and the finding is based on the fact that he was owner of 3 killas of land which was not controverted by the appellants. The deceased was 55 years of old and monthly dependency was worked out to be Rs.800.00 p. m. A multiplier of 15 was applied and an amo