( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under section 11od of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939, against the award passed by Claims Tribunal and District Judge, bhind, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Civil Misc. Case No. 7 of 1971.

( 2. ) THE facts of the case are that non-applicant No. 1 Jagannath Prasad was the owner of bus No. MPG 5971 and non-applicant No. 2 Gokaran singh was the driver. The bus was insured with non-applicant No. 3 and when the non-applicant No. 2 was driving the bus, when he was in the employment of non-applicant No. I, an accident took place on Lahar-Bhind road, near village Pon, on 18-2-1971. At that time, non-applicant No. 2 was driving the bus rashly and negligently and as such, in the accident Mayadevi and devendra Kumar sustained injuries and they died on the spot. Mayadevi is wife of the applicant Hari Mohan. Further, the applicant has stated that during the relevant time he was a student of Intermediate College, Rampura, and the deceased Mayadevi was his wife. When the accident took place, mayadevi was 16 years old. At the time of the accident, the applicant, along with his brothers Surendra Mohan, Ramsewak and Devendra Kumar, was travelling in a bullock-cart on Lahar-Bhind road. The alleged bus was driven rashly and negligently and it dashed against the bullock cart, as a result of which Mayadevi and Devendra Kumar died on the spot. Rest of the occupants of the bullock-cart suffered injuries. The bullock-cart was also damaged and the bullocks sustained injuries and one of them died. The applicant, on account of injuries and loss of his wife, could not prosecute his studies and suffered, both-mentally and physically. On this basis, he has claimed Rs. 60,000 as compensation from the non-applicants severally and jointly.

( 3. ) ALL the non-applicants have resisted the claim of the applicant and their case was that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver, but it was purely an accident. The defence of the Insurance Company was that if compensation is awarded, then the Insurance Company will be liable only to the extent of Rs. 20,000. The other objection was that the application is barred by limitation. Further, all the non-applicants have denied that the applicant is entitled to any compensation.

( 4. ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the deceased Mayadevi was the wife of the applicant? 2. Whether the N. A. No. 2 Gokaransingh was driving the bus no. MPG 5971 during the course of employment of N. A. No. 1 Jagannath prasad at the time of the accident ? 3. Whether the applicant sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving by N. A. No. 2-Gokaransingh? 4. Whether the deceased Mayadevi died due to rash and negligent driving by N. A. No. 2 Gokaransingh? 5. Whether the applicant is entitled to obtain the compensation for injuries to his person and also for the death of his wife? if so, how much and from whom? 6. Whether the application is not maintainable as it is not in the prescribed form? 7. Whether the application is barred by limitation? 8. Relief and costs?

( 5. ) THE first point decided by the learned Tribunal is that the application is within limitation and the application, as filed, is maintainable. It was not seriously disputed before me that the findings regarding issues Nos. 6 and 7 are not bad in law. Therefore, I confirm those findings.

( 6. ) THE Insurance Company has filed cross-objections against the award given by the learned Tribunal and submitted that the case is of pure accident and that the driver of the bus was not driving the bus negligently and rashly. But, in my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted, when the evidence produced by the applicant is sufficient to prove that while driving the bus, the bus driver was negligent and rash. Therefore, I do not see any substance in the cross-objections filed by the insurance Company within limitation and they are hereby rejecte