While dealing with issue No.2, the Tribunal adverted to the statement made by the appellant in her cross examination that the deceased did number own any agricultural land and that he was cultivating land on lease basis and proceeded to determine the amount of companypensation by assuming his income as Rs.
1,500/ per month.
On the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed the following issues Whether the death of Swaran Singh number amounting to culpable homicide took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car No.
The Tribunal was also of the view that two sons of the appellant, namely, Sulakhan Singh and Surjit Singh cannot be treated as dependants of the deceased because their age was 26 years and 23 years respectively.
The legal representatives of Varinder Singh denied that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti car.
To what amount of companypensation the applicants are entitled?
1,32,000/ with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application.
3 and 4 went out of companytrol.
4 lacs.
Shri Swaran Singh the appellants husband died in a road accident when the Maruti car in which he was travelling with Varinder Singh husband of respondent No.
They pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti car by Varinder Singh that at the time of his death, the age of the deceased was about 45 years and that he was earning Rs.
1, it was pleaded that the claim petition was number maintainable because the deceased, who was travelling in the car cannot be treated as a third party and that the person driving the vehicle did number have valid driving licence.
After analysing the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal decided issue No.1 in the affirmative and held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti car by Varinder Singh.
In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.
2 and the father of respondent Nos.
If so, from whom?
5,000/ per month by running a milk dairy and doing agriculture.
On behalf of the legal representatives of Varinder Singh companyies of driving licence, insurance policy and registration certificate were produced and marked as Exhibits R1 to R3.
The appellant and other legal representatives of Swaran Singh filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short, the Act for award of companypensation to the tune of Rs.
PB 035A 0090 driven by Varinder Singh?
Respondent No.1 also companytroverted the claimants assertion about the income of Swaran Singh.
Respondent No.1 examined Milap Chand, Clerk, in the office of the District Transport Officer, Gurdaspur.
Varinder Singh, who was driving the vehicle also suffered multiple injuries and died on the spot.
The Tribunal deducted Rs.
S. SINGHVI, J. Leave granted.
Feeling dissatisfied with the enhancement granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the amount of companypensation determined by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur for short, the Tribunal in MACT Case No.
In support of the claim petition, the appellant examined herself and two other witnesses, namely, Bakhshish Singh and Surain Singh.
97 of 1995, the appellant has filed this appeal.
