The main legal point established was the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act based on the deceased's income and dependency, and the impact of non-joinder of necessary parties on the liability for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. These are the two Appeals from Orders, which arises out of an accident, which had chanced on 20th November 2007 resulting into death of Zakir, who was said to have been sitting on the right side mudguard of the tractor bearing registration number UA-06A-7593, who on account of being hit by the running Bus, belonging to the appellant of Appeal from Order No. 492 of 2010, bearing Registration No. HR 46B-4919, Zakir had fell down and was later on crushed by the Bus and had consequently met with the sad demise.

2. It is contended that on the date of the accident, when the Tractor aforesaid, was passing through Bajpur, Kashipur Road, the accident did chanced at the turn of the village Parmanandpur at about 6.15 a.m. when the accident has occurred, it was alleged by the claimants/respondents herein, in the Appeal from Order No. 492/2010, that the accident has chanced on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and hence they filed a claim petition under Section 166 to be read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by preferring the same before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 30th April 2008.

3. The foundation of the case, even before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was that on the date of the accident the deceased Zakir, who was travelling on the right side mudguard of the tractor in question, was of 28 years of age and was a skilled person since he was a carpenter and he used to earn approximately Rs. 200/- per day, amounting to a total income of Rs. 6000/- per month and thus it was contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, that the claimants, who are the wife and the four children of the deceased, they would be entitled for an appropriate compensation, based upon their quantum of dependency, on the basis of the annual income, which was accruing to the deceased.

4. The claim petition thus preferred by the claimants, they had further contended, that as a consequence of the incident, which has chanced on 20th November 2007, the uncle of the deceased i.e. Mr. Khalif Ahmed, who was also travelling on the same Tractor also fell down and he too had suffered with some minor injuries in the same accident. It is submitted by the claimants that the post-mortem was conducted on the corpus of the deceased Zakir on 20th November 2007, and simultaneously an FIR was also registered being Case Crime No. 6017 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.

5. The claim petition thus filed by the claimants, they had submitted that on the basis of the income which was accruing to the deceased and considering the aspects of their dependency and the liability, which has befallen on the claimant No. 1 and on the four surviving minor children, the claimant has claimed for compensation to be remitted to them to the tune of Rs. 11.00 lakh.

6. The claim petition was contested by the appellant of Appeal from Order No. 492 of 2010, i.e. Haryana State Road Transport Corporation, by filing its written statement by way of paper number 14 (kha), wherein it was submitted by the respondent No. 1, in the written statement, that the liability of payment of compensation couldn’t be fastened upon the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. the Bus in question, because there was no cause of action against them, because of the fact that the Bus in question, at the relevant point of time was being driven by its driver, who was having the valid document, i.e. the valid driving licence and it was being driven by him with utmost perfection without there being any factor of negligence, at all which could have required to be determined under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. It was further submitted by the appellant of AO No. 492 of 2010, that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle i.e. the Bus was duly insured with the Insurance Company called as ‘ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, and the same was covered by the terms and conditions of the