Singh, C.J. -- 1. We propose to dispose of both the Appeals (M.A. No. 1038/97 -- Bhagwandas Tiwari and 4 others V/s. Ratnibai and others; and M.A. No. 1090/97 -- Ratnibai and others V/s. Bhagwandas Tiwari and others), 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. 3/89.

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 payment of compensation while the later 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 (deceased) was going from Sultanganj to Begumganj on motor-cycle No. M.K.D. 3300. A bus No. C.P.Q. 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, 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. 9000/- per month. He was 45 years 9 months at the time of accident. He was spending Rs. 4,000/- per month on his family members and in addition to this, Rs. 1,000/- was also spent for 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-claimants No.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 negligent 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-claimants No.1, 2 and 3, namely, Bhagwandas Tiwari, Hanumant Singh and Gandharva Singh. The bus was being plied by non-claimant No.4 (Tilak Singh), on basis of hire purchase agreement between the non-claimant No. 1, 2 & 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 paragraph 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 Claims 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 Chandrakumar ?

(3) Whether, on the date of accident, the non-claimants No.1 to 3 were owners of Trimurti Bus No. C.P.Q. 9207 ?

(4) Whether on 5.6.1989, the non-claimant 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. M.K.D. 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 public high-way near Modakpur Ghati ?

(6-B) Whether Chandra Kumar died as a result of accident?

(7-A) Whether 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. 4000/- 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 Claims Tribunal c