BHAWANI SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) WE propose to dispose of both the appeals (M. A. No. 1038 of 1997 Bhagwan Das Tiwari v. Ratni Bai and M. A. No. 1090 of 1997 ratni Bai v. Bhagwan Das Tiwari) by this common order, since they arise out of the same accident and award dated 16. 5. 1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Begumganj, District Raisen, in claim Case No. 3 of 1989.

( 2 ) IT may be noted that former appeal is at the instance of the owners and driver of the vehicle in question for setting aside the award and exonerating them from the liability for the payment of compensation while the latter appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Chandra Kumar for enhancement of the award.

( 3 ) THE brief facts are that on 5. 6. 1989 chandra Kumar (the deceased) was going from Sultanganj to Begumganj on motor cycle No. MKD 3300. A bus No. CPQ 9207 dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which Chandra Kumar died spontaneously on the spot. The motor cycle was also badly damaged. Consequently, a claim petition for Rs. 28,57,000 along with interest was filed before the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Begumganj. It is stated that Chandra Kumar was a private medical practitioner and was earning rs. 9,000 per month. He was 45 years 9 months at the time of accident. He was spending about Rs. 4,000 per month on his family members and in addition to this, rs. 1,000 was also spent towards religious ceremonies.

( 4 ) THE allegation is that the bus was driven rashly and negligently by the driver, which caused the accident. The case set up by the non-claimant Nos. 1 to 5 is that chandra Kumar (deceased), who was driving the motor cycle, was trying to overtake the bus, but he lost balance of his motor cycle and dashed against the bus. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the bus driver, rather the same is on the part of the motor-cyclist. The bus was not being driven by Sant Singh (non-claimant no. 5), therefore, non-claimants are not liable for payment of compensation.

( 5 ) IT is mentioned in the claim petition that the bus was registered in the names of non-claimant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, bhagwan Das Tiwari, Hanumant Singh and Gandharva Singh. The bus was being plied by non-claimant No. 4 (Tilak Singh), on the basis of hire-purchase agreement between the non-claimant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the non-claimant No. 4 and, therefore, the non-claimant No. 4 (Tilak Singh) was owner of the vehicle. This statement has been admitted by the owners in para 3 of the written statement and Tilak Singh has also confirmed this fact in his written statement.

( 6 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased? (2) Whether Karodilal was also the name of deceased Chandra Kumar? (3) Whether, on the date of accident, the non-claimant Nos. 1 to 3 were the owners of Trimurti bus No. CPQ 9207? (4) Whether on 5. 6. 1989, the nonclaimant No. 4 (Tilak Singh) was owner of the vehicle and plied the bus on the basis of hire-purchase agreement? (5-A) Whether on the date of accident, motor cycle No. MKD 3300 was being driven by Sadhu alias Laxman Singh? (5-B) Whether on the date of accident, deceased Chandra Kumar was pillion rider of the motor cycle? (6-A) Whether the non-claimant No. 5 was plying the vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which the vehicle dashed against the motor cycle on pubic highway near Modakpur Ghati? (6-B) Whether Chandra Kumar died as a result of accident? (7-A) Whether the deceased Chandra kumar was a medical practitioner? (7-B) Whether age of Chandra Kumar on the date of accident was about 46 years? (7-C) Whether the income of the deceased Chandra Kumar was Rs. 300 per day? (7-D) Whether Chandra Kumar was spending Rs. 4,000 per month on his family? (8-A) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? (8-B) If so, from whom and to what extent? (9) Relief and cost.

( 7 ) THE parties led evidence in the case and the Cl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document