The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the determination of liability and entitlement to compensation.

Vinod K. Sharma, J. - This order shall dispose of the three appeals mentioned above as they arise out of common award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short the Tribunal).

2. The claimants Smt. Mantari and others along with Rameshwar filed two separate claim petitions under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act).

3. Mantari and others claimed compensation on account of death of deceased Rattan Singh. The deceased along with other passengers was said to be travelling in TATA four-wheeler bearing No. HR-31-2976. The said four-wheeler was coming from village Bidola to Isherwal. The vehicle was being driven by Sube Singh - respondent in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed in zig zag manner. It was claimed that in spite of warning the driver continued to drive the vehicle rashly and negligently. It was further stated that the driver lost control over the vehicle which struck against a Kikar tree. As a result thereof the vehicle turned turtle in which Rattan Singh got grievous injuries and later on succumbed to those injuries.

4. The claimant Rameshwar in the connected claim petition claimed that he suffered permanent disability and disfigured.

5. Claimants Mantari and others claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs on account of death of Rattan Singh on the ground that he was aged 30 years and was working as agriculturist and as labourer and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month.

6. Both the claim petitions were contested by the respondents. Respondent No. 1 denied that he was owner of four-wheeler. It was also claimed that respondent No. 2 was not the driver of the offending vehicle nor the owner and therefore, it was claimed that the claim petition qua him be dismissed. Jagdish alias Jai Parkash respondent No. 1-A claimed that he had already sold the vehicle in question to respondent No. 1 and possession thereof was also given and therefore, he has been wrongly impleaded as a party. The Oriental Insurance Company, raised objection that the offending goods vehicle was carrying passengers in violation of conditions of policy and as such the company was not liable to pay compensation. It was further claimed that the driver did not have a valid driving licence whereas other allegations were also denied.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed following issues in main petition :-

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of four- wheeler No. HR-31/2976, as a result of which the petitioner sustained injuries and Rattan Singh died as alleged ? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so from whom and to what amount ? OPP

3. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file the petition ? OPR

4. Whether the petitioners are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present petition ? OPR

5. Relief.

On Issues No. 1 and 2 learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of four-wheeler as a result whereof Rameshwar suffered injuries whereas Rattan Singh succumbed later to injuries sustained due to accident.

8. Rameshwar injured was held entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of injuries suffered by him as well as for mental agony and pain and suffering. The claimants Mantari and others were held entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,72,800/- as compensation. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of deceased to be Rs. 1200/- per month and dependency was taken to be Rs. 900/- and multiplier of 16 was applied and thus, the total amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 1,72,800/-. As regards the liability of the respondent learned Tribunal was please to lay down as under :

"16. Now coming to the question, who is liable to pay the compensation. It was argued that respondent No. 1 Sube Singh is not the driver nor he knows driving and RW1 Sube Singh has stated on oath that he is running a Poultry farm and he has not cause