IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation--Death of partner of firm--Deceased was earning profits in the business by his ‘business acumen & skill’ and not merely by his presence--It is definitely a loss to deceased family--Compensation granted

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- The appellants/claimants have come up in this appeal against the Award dated October 05,1988, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the claimants were held not entitled to any compensation on account of negligence on the part of the bus driver. However, they were held entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘no fault liability’ under Section 92-A of the Act, as the respondents have admitted the accident, in which Ram Rattan, since deceased received injuries and died. It was further held that the claimants have already received Rs.15,000/- on the basis of ‘ no fault liability’ vide order of the Tribunal dated September 28,1987. It was also held that if the aforesaid amount is not recovered earlier, then it shall be recovered by the claimants No.1 to 4 from the respondents, who were made liable to pay the same jointly and severally and in case, the said amount is recovered by the claimants from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 then they were further held entitled to recover the same from respondent No.3, who had admitted the accident having taken place due to his negligence.

2. Briefly stated, the facts as pleaded by the claimants in the claim petition are that on December 16,1986,at about 10.a.m., the deceased Ram Rattan along-with his son Sudhir Kumar, was coming towards Khanna after visiting village Mohanpur on their respective vehicles Hero Majestic Moped bearing registration No. PAN-4912 and Scooter bearing registration No. PJN -2155, respectively. After entering G.T.road, the deceased was going on the extreme left side of the road while Sudhir Kumar was behind him. He had stopped on the way to meet a customer, when all of a sudden a bus belonging to Punjab Roadways bearing registration No. PJG-1630 of Ferozepur Depot, being driven by its driver-respondent No.3- Gurbax Singh,rashly and negligently wanted to overtake the deceased from the wrong side, who was going on the correct side, hit him from behind. Consequently, right front wheel of the bus ranover the moped, due to which, Ram Rattan succumbed to his injuries at the spot and died. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed by claimant Nos.1 to 4 on account of the death of said Ram Rattan being wholly dependant on him. It was further case of the claimant that the deceased was 55 years of age at the time of the accident and was doing business of Cloth Merchants as a partner in the firm M/S Ram Sarup Ram Rattan at G. T. Road, Khanna and in M/S Rattan Sons Khanna in which he had 25% share and 10% shares respectively.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed their separate written statements. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 admitted the accident but attributed the negligence to the deceased. It was alleged that the deceased who was riding moped No. PAN-4912, came from village lane and entered the G.T.Road without caring to see if the road ahead was clear of the traffic and he suddenly came in front of the bus, which was going on its correct side at a normal speed, the bus driver tried his level best to avoid the accident but could not do so. Repondent No.3, driver of the bus, in his written statement dated July 27, 1987 narrated the version of accident stating that the accident had taken placed solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, who while entering the main road from the lane did not care to see if the road ahead was clear of any coming traffic. He suddenly came in front of the bus which was going on its correct side and at a normal speed. However, on August 21,1987, respondent No.3, driver of the bus, filed an application before the Tribunal for amendment of his written statement, which was accepted by the Tribunal vide its order dated September 02,1987. In the amended written statement dated September 15,1987, the driver of the offending bus admitted the negligence. Para No.8 of the amended written statement reads thus:-

“In reply to para No.8, of the petition, it