Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, J.:- This is an appeal by the claimants before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to them vide the impugned Award dated 03.08.2007.

2. The claim petition had been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), by the four appellants-claimants (hereinafter to be referred to as the claimants), seeking compensation for the death of Maya Devi, aged 53 years, who met with a motor vehicle accident on 27.08.2004.

It was stated in the petition that she was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.CH-01-G/5836, belonging to the first respondent herein, i.e. the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, on the said date. The bus was being driven by respondent No.2, who had stopped it to enable passengers to get down from it. When Maya Devi was in the process of alighting from the vehicle, respondent No.2 is stated to have suddenly started it, due to which she fell down and received injuries. She was taken to the hospital, where she died on 02.09.2004, i.e. about six days later. It was claimed that about Rs.80,000/- were spent on her treatment and funeral expenses and that since she was a house wife, her income may be taken to be Rs.3300/- per month. In all, a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed.

3. Upon notice issued to the respondents, respondent No.1 pleaded in its written statement that when the bus had reached near the Chandi Mandir Bus-Stop, 100 meters short of the stop, some passengers, as also the bus conductor, raised a noise that a lady passenger had jumped out of the bus, upon which respondent No.2 had immediately stopped the vehicle. On seeing the lady lying on the road in an unconscious condition, she was taken to the General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula and admitted there.

Thus, the entire negligence was attributed by respondent No. 1, to the deceased.

The written statement filed by respondent No.1 (the transport undertaking), was also adopted by respondent No.2, i.e. the bus driver.

4. The insurance company, i.e. respondent No.3, also denied the claim and further stated that the driver of the bus was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident.

5. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

“1. Whether Maya Devi died in a motor vehicular accident caused on 27.08.2004 with Bus No.CH-01-G/5836 driven by respondent No.2 as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Maya Devi? OPP

3. If issues No.1 and 2 are proved to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to end from which of the respondents? OPP

4. Whether respondent No.2 was not holding a valid driving licence? OPR-3

5. Relief.”

6. An eye witness appearing for the claimants, PW2, (described in the Award only as one Kumar), supported the version of the claimants, stating that he was present at the bus-stop of Chandi Mandir alongwith one Roop Singh, waiting for a bus to go to Panchkula, when the “offending vehicle” came at a fast speed from the side of Pinjore. However, when the deceased was alighting from the bus, the driver started the bus, resulting in the deceased falling down and receiving serious injuries.

On the other hand, respondent No.2 appeared as his own witness and testified in terms of the written statement filed by respondent No.1, further stating that when he was over-taking another vehicle, a truck came from the opposite side. On seeing it, he had slowed down the speed of his bus and during that process, the deceased jumped from the bus and he had actually brought her to the PGI, Chandigarh.

7. Since the claim petition had been filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the learned Tribunal held that proof of negligence of the driver of the vehicle was not required to be established, when the deceased was admittedl