The main legal point established in the judgment is the affirmation of the findings of the Tribunal on negligence and compensation, highlighting the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166.

JUDGMENT

R.L. Anand, J. - Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (hereinafter called the Corporation) has filed the present appeal against Smt. Joginder Kaur widow of Mohinder Singh, Amritpal Singh and Inderjit Singh, both minor sons of Mohinder Singh and Sarabjit Kaur, minor daughter of Mohinder Singh and Smt. Harbans Kaur, mother of Mohinder Singh deceased by adding Jaspal Singh, driver of the bus, and it has been directed against the award dated 2.5.1991 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur, Camp at Barnala, vide which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- by way of just compensation to Joginder Kaur, Amritpal Singh, Inderjit Singh and Sarabjit Kaur along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of claim petition i.e. 1.8.1988. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of this appeal Smt. Joginder Kaur has expired. Her LRs. are already on the record and thus there was no necessity to implead the LRs of Smt. Joginder Kaur.

2. The claim petition before the Tribunal was filed by Smt. Joginder Kaur, Amritpal Singh, Inderjit Singh, Sarbjit Kaur and Harbans Kaur against the Corporation and Jaspal Singh, driver of the offending bus, who claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of the death of Mohinder Singh, who was aged about 40 years at the time of accident. The accident took place on 15.3.1988 when deceased Mohinder Singh was driving truck No. HRN-9230 and was coming from Ludhiana and was going towards Sirsa (Haryana). Charanjit Singh was the cleaner of truck. At the time of accident, Ram Singh, father of the deceased, and four other persons were also sitting in the truck. At about 10.30 p.m. when the truck reached at Sheikha crossing in the area of Barnala, a bus bearing No. PJG-8210 belonging to respondent No. 1 Corporation, driven by respondent Jaspal Singh came speedily in a rash and negligent manner from the left hand side and hit the truck. The truck turned turtle on its right side at a distance of 8/10 Karams and its driver fell under the truck and was crushed. Later on the truck was brought to standing position with the help of some persons and two cranes. Ram Singh and other persons also received minor injuries. Charanjit Singh cleaner lodged FIR and the deadbody of Mohinder Singh was removed in the truck to Civil Hospital, Barnala. The case of the claimants is that they were dependent upon the income of the deceased who was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month by driving the truck.

3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents and it was contested only by the Corporation which filed the reply and denied the allegations of the claimants. All the material averments were denied including the one that the claimant/petitioners are the LRs of deceased Mohinder Singh and that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal :-

"(1) Whether the passenger bus No. PJG-7210 belonging to the P.R.T.C. of Barnala Depot being driven by Jaspal Singh respondent collided against the truck No. HRN-9230, being driven by Mohinder Singh deceased at about 10.30 P.M. on March 15, 1988 at Bheikha Road Crossing, Barnala ? OPP

(2) Whether the accident in question between the truck No. HRN-9230 and the passenger bus No. PJG-7210 occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver Jaspal Singh ? OPP

(3) Whether the claimants-petitioners are the dependents of Mohinder Singh deceased ? OPP

(4) Whether the death of Mohinder Singh occurred due to the injuries sustained in the accident between the truck No. HRN-9230 and passenger bus No. PJG-7210 ? OPP

(5) What compensation, if any, the claimant-petitioners are entitled to recover from the respondents on account of the death of Mohinder Singh ? OPP

(6) Whether the claim petition is bad on account of the non-joinder/mis- joinder of the parties ? OPR

(7) Relief."

5. The parties led evidence and on the conclusion o