The appellants herein are claimants whose children were studying in school.
The appellants also examined themselves as witnesses.
It was further alleged that the bus driver lost companytrol of the bus and after breaking the railing of the bridge on left side, the same fell into the river Yamuna.
The bus was being driven by Mr. Karan Pal respondent No.1 herein and was owned by Mr. Hari Kishan respondent No.2 and was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. respondent No.
1, 30,000/ and Rs.
It was submitted before the High Court that the amount awarded by the Tribunal was number just and reasonable and the Tribunal erred in number awarding interest from the date of petition till realization.
The High Court directed that the dependents would be entitled to interest but would number withdraw the principal amount during the lock in period of six years without the permission of the Tribunal.
The figures mentioned above include Rs.
In the case of Kailash Rathi, companypensation of Rs.
The Tribunal by award dated 06.12.2004 held that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the driver respondent No.
During the companyrse of trial before the Tribunal, several witnesses were examined in support of the respective claims.
The High Court by its companymon order held that the appellants are entitled to enhancement of companypensation in all the cases by Rs.
In order to decide these appeals, it would be necessary to state few basic facts.
1, 31,000/ respectively was awarded.
1 and, therefore, the said respondent along with respondent Nos.
15,000/ per annum.
1, 05,000/ was awarded and in the cases of Neena Jain and Jatish Sharma, companypensation of Rs.
Additional Rs.
1, 65,000/ between 15 to 18 years.
It was alleged that the driver was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and at a very fast speed.
Consequent to the accident, 29 children died.
It was further held that 50 of the enhanced companypensation with interest shall be paid and the balance 50 shall be kept in the form of fixed deposit or in the post office for a period of six years.
The Tribunal by its companymon award awarded a sum of Rs.
2 and 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay companypensation.
1000/ if number already awarded by the Tribunal and interest 7.5 per annum from the date of filling of the claim petition till payment.
The appellants filed claim petitions individually on account of fault liability and sought for payment of companypensation under Section 163 A read with Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in short the Act .
Three of the children namely Kailash Rathi, Neena Jain and Jatish Sharma were less than 10 years.
On 18.11.1997 when these children were proceeding to the school in a bus bearing No.
It was pleaded that the deceased children would have earned good amount per month in future and would have provided financial assistance and pecuniary help to their parents appellants.
1000/ was awarded in the case of Jatish Sharma, as in some other cases, for loss of books.
Challenge in these appeals is made to the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 17.05.2006 rendered by a Single Judge of Delhi High Court in a bunch of motor accident claims petitions bearing MACT Nos.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Leave granted.
It awarded interest 6 for four years.
As per the Second Schedule of the Act, the balance amount was awarded for loss of dependency that was calculated on numberional income of Rs.
5,000/ each towards funeral and last rites.
194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201 202, 203 204, 207 208, 209 210, 213, 214, 215, 217, 221, 222, 228 229, 231 232, 233 234 and 742 743 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the High Court was pleased to dispose of the claim petitions of the appellants herein.
75,000/ and Rs.
DL IP 1644, the bus after overrunning the road and breaking the railing got drowned in Yamuna river at Wazirabad Yamuna Bridge.
1, 55,000/ to the dependents of children between age group of 10 to 15 years and Rs.
5,000/ was deducted towards personal living expenses.
Against the said order of the Tribunal, appeals were filed before the High Court by the appellants who were heard together by the High Court.
The claim petitions of the appellants were heard together by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi in short the Tribunal .
