JUDGMENT :

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. 

1. This appeal has been instituted against award dated 04.08.2000 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.17 of 1998 decided by MACT, Sirsa, in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/ appellant along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realisation on account of death of Satish Kumar, who was son of claimant, in a motor vehicular accident.

2. Originally, the claim petition was instituted by the parents of the deceased and during pendency of the claim petition, his mother Smt. Mani Devi expired and her name was deleted from the array of the claimants.

3. Case of the petitioner is that on 28.01.1998 at about 04:30 P.M., deceased- Satish Kumar along with Karamjeet and Chander Pal was standing near New Bus Shelter near ITI, Sirsa. In the meanwhile, private bus bearing registration No.HR-39/1855 came from the side of Village Rania which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 and bus hit Satish Kumar and caused the accident. Respondent No.1 and the conductor of the bus fled away leaving behind the offending vehicle at the spot. FIR was got registered by Karamjeet Singh vide FIR No.133 dated 28.01.1998, for the offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC, at Police Station City Sirsa. It is further submitted that deceased was 20 years of age and he was a final year student of ITI Sirsa and was doing “Turner Course” and after obtaining diploma, he would have got job with a salary of around Rs.4,000/- per month. It is further submitted that petitioner along with his wife was dependant upon the deceased and now they have no source of income and they have suffered huge loss on account of death of their son and a sum of Rs.20 lakhs was claimed as compensation. The bus was owned by respondent No.2 which was insured with respondent No.3 and all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

4. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement and have controverted the contents of the petition. Allegations with regard to rash and negligent driving have been denied. A plea has been taken that when the bus was passing by near the Bus Shelter near ITI, deceased tried to board the bus and he could not succeed and slipped down on the road resulting in the accident due to his own negligence.

5. Respondent No.3- Insurance Company has also challenged the petition on the grounds of maintainability, locus standi and cause of action. The material contents of the petition with regard to rash and negligent driving, age and income of the deceased and his educational qualification have been refuted to be wrong. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is also submitted that the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased himself and dismissal of the claim petition was sought.

6. Replication was filed and the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

“1. Whether the accident in question took place on 28.1.1998 in the area of Sirsa due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.HR- 39/1855 by respondent No.1 resulting in the death of Satish Kumar? OPP

2. Whether the claimants are the only legal heirs/ dependents of the deceased Satish Kumar?OPP

3. How much amount of compensation claimants are entitled to receive for the death of Satish Kumar and from whom? OPP.

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

5. Whether the claimants have no cause of action to file the present petition?OPR.

6. Relief.”

7. Both the parties led their respective evidence in support of their case.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the material on file, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question resulting in the d