JUDGMENT C.A. Rahim, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 15.1.1981 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhansi, allowing the claims of both the petitioners in part under Section 110-B of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for the accident which resulted into the death of Pheran Singh and Pam Singh.
2. The claim was made on the basis that both the deceased were travelling by motor cycle No. PUM 6289. Bus No. CPH 8297, which was owned by M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, caused accident on 8.7.1978 at about 7.30 p.m.
3. Two claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by the heirs of both the deceased for which Claim Petition Nos. 1 of 1979 and 7 of 1979 were started. Learned Tribunal Judge allowed Rs, 1,00,800/- to the widow and child of the deceased Pheran Singh in claim petition No. 1 of 1979 and allowed Rs. 1,10,000/- to the widow and four children of the deceased Pam Singh in claim petition No. 7 of 1979.
4. The case of the claimants is that on 8.7.1978 at about 7.30 p.m. an accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus No. CPH 8297 while Pheran Singh was going by his motor cycle No. PUM 6289 along with Pam Singh. Both of them received serious injuries all over their bodies and expired thereafter. Deceased Pheran Singh was aged about 30 years. His income was approximately Rs. 700/- per month. He was the only earning member of the family and his heirs, i.e., wife and minor daughter of the said deceased had no independent source of income and they were wholly dependent on the income of the deceased Pheran Singh. His wife lost her consort in the prime of her youth. His parents (appellant Nos. 3 and 4) also lost their earning son. The child lost her father in the childhood. The agriculture and business of the family suffered. The total claim on all these counts was Rs. 2,29,200/- but the learned Tribunal rejected the claim of the parents (appellant Nos. 3 and 4) and allowed Rs. 1,00,800/- in all on different counts.
5. The case of the heirs of the deceased Pam Singh in Claim Petition No. 7 of 1979 was that his death was caused as he was moving on the motor cycle of Pheran Singh as a pillion rider. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the said bus. Pam Singh was aged about 35 years and his monthly income was Rs. 400. He was the only earning member of the family. His father is aged about 75 years, who has renounced the world and has become a saint. His wife and four children claimed compensation for the loss of dependency, pain and agony, for marriage of the two daughters and for education of the two sons, etc. The valuation of the claim petition was Rs. 1,80,000/- but the learned Tribunal Judge after considering all these aspects allowed Rs. 1,10,000/- to the heirs of the deceased Pam Singh in claim case No. 7 of 1979.
6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal Judge has wrongly awarded Rs. 17,000/- in Claim Case No. 1 of 1979 to the heirs of the deceased Pheran Singh and Rs. 14,000/- to the heirs of the deceased Pam Singh in claim case No. 7 of 1979 on account of pain and agony. In this connection the learned advocate has referred the case of Padma Devi v. U. P. State Road Trans. Corporation. 1988 ACJ 667 (Allahabad). In para 17 of the said citation, it appears that Hon'ble Judge of Division Bench has referred a decision of Supreme Court in N. Sivammal v. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation. 1985 ACJ 75 (SC), in support of the contention. From the judgment, we find that the learned Tribunal Judge has not discussed it in its true perspective. The law having been established we are bound to hold that in both claim cases claimants are not entitled to get any compensation on that count.
7. Learned advocate has then submitted that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased persons who were riding on the motor cycle at the time of the accident and it was not due to any rash and negligent driving of the driver of the State bus as alleged. The said point was also raised before the learned Tribunal Judge and we find from the judgment that the learned Tribunal Judge has discussed it and found it against the opposite party-appellant. It appears that the State bus fell into the ditch after causing the accident while it was coming from Jhansi side towards Babina. This fact alone indicates that the bus was running at a speed which was beyond the control of the driver at the time of the accident. Learned Tribunal Judge has rightly held that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the bus and not due to the negligence of the motor-cyclists. Another objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that one Girendra Singh died due to that accident and not Pheran Singh and accordingly, the claim of the heirs of Pheran Singh cannot be sustained. In this respect too we find that the learned Tribunal has gone into the said question and decided that illusion was caused as at the time of post-mortem examination the heirs of the deceased Pheran Singh were not present. It also appears that none appeared as heir of Girendra Singh and claimed compensation due to his death. We also found that the learned Tribunal Judge is correct in holding that Pheran Singh expired due to that accident and his heirs have rightly claimed compensation for his death.
8. We have carefully considered the quantum of compensation allowed to the heirs of both the deceased and have come to the conclusion that if the compensation is allowed to the claimants to the extent of Rs. 82,000/- in all, i.e., to the heirs of the deceased Pheran Singh and Pam Singh, separately it would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part.
9. The heirs of the deceased in F.A.F.O. No. 231 of 1981 will receive an amount of Rs. 82,000/- as compensation for the death of Pheran Singh with costs. The heirs of the deceased Pam Singh in F.A.F.O. No. 232 of 1981 will also receive Rs. 82,000/- towards compensation with costs. The interest awarded by the learned Tribunal Judge is hereby upheld but it will operate from the date of filing of petition.
10. The learned Tribunal Judge has considered that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 will receive nothing as they got some landed property and they were not found to be wholly dependent on the deceased Pheran Singh. Since they have lost their only son we do not consider that if they have some other avocation they would be deprived from getting any amount of compensation. They have not only lost their only son but also his services in their old age. Accordingly, we find that they are equally entitled to receive the compensation for their deceased child both the appeals are allowed in part, along with the wife and minor child in equal proportion.
11. With the observations made above,