IMPORTANT POINT
Accident--Compensation—Entitlement of—Brother of a person (unmarried brother) who was killed in a motor vehicle accident can claim compensation in a proceeding instituted before MACT being legal representative.
Accident--Compensation--Entitlement of--Unclaimed dead body--Even if the dead body of deceased was cremated by the police as unclaimed, that does not debar the claimants/legal representative to claim compensation on account of death of deceased.

K. C. Puri, J.:-This is an appeal directed by the claimants/appellants against the award dated 11.10.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal vide which claim petition No.62 of 1994 titled Varinder Singh and others Versus Ramesh Chander and others, was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 24.12.1993, Narinder Singh, since deceased, was working as a Cleaner on truck No. HNR- 1542. The said truck was being driven by Ramesh Chander, respondent, in a rash and negligent manner. When the truck reached near village Manak Majra, District Karnal, at about 3-00 AM, another truck bearing registration No.DL-IG-3797 which was loaded with goats came from Delhi side. The driver of truck No.HNR-1542 could not control his truck and brought the same on his wrong side of the road and struck against truck No. DL-IG-3797 due to which some goats were killed. The cleaner of the offending truck succumbed to his injuries. Both the trucks turned turtle. Nathu Ram also received injuries on account of accident.

3. Four claim petitions were filed bearing MACT No.31 of 1994, titled Prabhu Dayal Versus Ramesh Chander, MACT No.44 of 1994, titled Nathu Ram Versus Ramesh Chander, MACT No.62 of 1994, titled Varinder Singh and others Versus Ramesh Chander and MACT No.,120 of 1994 titled Kaptan Singh Versus Rajneesh Kumar and others.

4. In claim petition No.31 of 1994, Prabhu Dayal has claimed that he was the owner of goats loaded in truck No.DL-IG-3797 which were killed in the accident. He claimed a sum of Rs.five lacs as compensation.

5. Nathu Ram, has filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. five lacs for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

6. Kaptan Singh has filed claim petition in respect of damage to truck No.HNR-1542 by taking the plea that the driver of truck No. DL-IG-3797 was negligent and the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of that driver. He has claimed Rs.two lacs on account of damage to his truck No.HNR-1542.

7. The present claimants have averred that Narinder Singh deceased was employed as a Cleaner with Kaptan Singh and was earning Rs.1,500/- per month. The claimants are brothers of the deceased. They being the legal representatives of Narinder Singh are entitled to claim compensation amounting to Rs.five lacs.

8. All the four claim petitions were resisted and have been disposed of with the common award dated 11.10.1996 passed by Shri R.C.Gupta, the then Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal.

The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident dated 24.12.1993 near village Manak Majra resulting into the deaths of goats of Prabhu Dayal, injuries to Nathu Ram, death of Narinder Singh and damage to truck No.HNR-1542 took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HNR-1542 by its driverrespondent Ramesh Chander, or due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.DL-IG-3797 by its driver-respondent Rajneesh Kumar or it is case of composite negligence of both the drivers?OPP.

2. Whether applicant Prabhu Dayal is entitled to any compensation on account of deaths of goats. If so, how much and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether applicant Nathu Ram is entitled to any compensation on account of the injuries. If so, how much and from whom? OPP.

4. Whether applicants Varinder Singh etc. are entitled to any compensation on account of the death of Narinder Singh. If so, how much and from whom? OPP.

5. Whether applicant Kaptan Singh is entitled to any compensation on account of damage to his truck No.HNR- 1542. If so, how much and from whom? OPP.

6. Whether both the vehicles were being driven by unauthorised persons, who were not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. If so, its effect ?OPR.

7. Relief.

9. While deciding issue No.1, the learned Tribunal has returned a finding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of truck No.HNR-1542. Issue No.4 was decided against the claimants holding t