SHANKER RAO Vs. BABULAL FOUZDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Is a claimant's appeal under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 12-3-1976 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal East Nimar, Khandwa in Claims Case No. 12 of 1974 dismissing the entire claim for compensation made under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,

(2.) The motor accident giving rise to the claim occurred on 26-1-1974 when deceased Ambadas was knocked down by a bus MFC 4757 which came from behind. Ambadas when he was walking on the correct side of the road at Khandwa near the Bus stand. The deceased Ambadas was a peon in the Government Irrigation Department and was aged about 40 years at the time of his death. He was drawing in all Rs. 196/-per month as his salary. The deceased succumbed to his injuries soon after the accident in which he was crushed under the front wheel. The deceased was unmarried and the sole claimant Shanker Rao is his elder brother. The claimant alleged that he was being paid Rs. 100/- per month by the deceased for meeting the house hold and other expenses. On this basis a claim for compensation had been made by him as a result of death of Ambadas. Respondent No. 1 is the owner, respondent No, 2 is the driver and respondent No, 3 is the insurer of the offending bus.

(3.) The Tribunal has held that the accident occurred entirely on account of negligence of the bus driver and the deceased Ambadas died as a result of injuries sustained by him in that accident. It has further been held that respondent No. 2 Hari Prasad who was driving the bus had no driving licence and he 'was also not an employee of the insured. Accordingly the insurer has been absolved from liability for payment of any compensation. It has also been held that the claimant being the brother of the deceased, ha was not entitled to recover any compensation as there was no pecuniary loss to him and a brother is not entitled to claim compensation under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act On this reason alone the entire claim has been dismissed against all the respondents. That has led to the filing of this appeal by the claimant.