The main legal point established in the judgment is the right of legal representatives, including major married and earning sons of the deceased, to apply for compensation in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT

Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral) - The appellants Sukhmander Kaur and her brother Kamaljit Singh has come in this appeal against an Award dated 07.09.2012 of the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Mukatsar Sahib whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,31,000/- only to mother claimant No. 1 Jasbir Kaur, wife respondent No.4-Shallu and minor son respondentNo.5 Tanvir Singh of the deceased Raja @ Charanjit Singh alongwith interest @ 6% per annum.

2. Heard Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants, Mr. Sunder Gaur, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2, Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3 and Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5.

3. One Raja @ Charanjit Singh who was aged around 27 years husband of Shallu then respondent No.4 and father of Tanvir Singh minor son respondent No.5 on 20.11.2010 was on their motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-30F-1504 (in short, the 'ill fated motorcycle') which met with an accident with the bus bearing registration No. PB-30E-5378 (in short, 'the offending bus') as a consequence of rash and negeligent driving of respondent No.1 Mehal Singh driver of offending bus which was owned by respondent No.2 New Deep Bus Service and insured with the National Insurance Company respondent No.3. FIR No. 217 dated 21.11.2010 under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC (Ex.P1) was registered at Police Station City Sri Muktsar Sahib. Post mortem (Ex.P5) was also performed.The claim that the deceased was running a gym and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month and had passed 10+2 examination, upon whom, the claimants were dependents and on account of loss of bread earner sought compensation from the respondents, driver, owner and insurer of the offending bus. Respondents No. 1 and 2 denied the accident in their response and claimed that they are not bound to pay compensation as the bus in question was insured with respondent No.3-National Insurance Company. The latter in their reply has taken plea of maintainability, the claimants being not dependants and that the driver of the bus was not holding legal, valid and effective driving licence which was without any valid route, permit and registration certificate.

4. The Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether Raja @ Charanjit Singh died in motor vehicle accident, which took place on 21.11.2010 at 9.30 p.m. in the area of police station City Sri Muktsar Sahib on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 Mehal Singh of bus No. PB-30E-5378? OP claimants.

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation being legal representatives of Raja @ Charanjit Singh deceased? If so, how much and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether driver of the bus No. PB-30E-5378 was not holding the valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident? 0PR3.

4. Whether the bus No. PB-30E-5378 was not holding a valid route permit, registration and fitness certificate at the time of accident? OPR

5. Relief".

5. The claimants examined PW1 Jasbir Kaur mother of the deceased and Shri Gurmeet Singh PW2 who deposed as to the earnings of the deceased and PW3 Anil Sood who also corroborated the earning of the deceased and respondent Shalu testified as RW1 giving eye witness account of the accident attributing act of rash and negligent driving of the bus inquestion.

6. No other evidence was led by the opposite parties.

7. Appreciating the submissions, findings on Issue No. 1 have not at all displaced by the respondents, driver, owner and insurer of the offending bus. The testimony of the eye witness wife, the copy of the FIR Ex.P1, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C Ex.P4 and post mortem report Ex.P5 further corroborates that it was on account of accidental injuries received in a motor vehicular accident, the deceased had died and the findings on Issue No.1 needs to be upheld.

8. The onus to prove the issues No. 3 and 4 was upon the Insurance Company and the counsel Mr. Lalit Garg for the Insurance Company could not displace the evidence l