RAM BHAJ Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of FAOs 1215 to 1218 and 1132 and 1133 of 1997 which are directed against the same award dated 3. 1. 1997 of the learned Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Ambala.

(2.) IN an unfortunate accident which took place on 2. 11. 1990 on Ambala-Jagadhari road between a tempo occupied by about 30 to 40 persons who were going to attend a religious function, and a Haryana Roadways Bus, eight persons died and many others sustained multiplier injuries. Twenty-eight separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act were filed by the dependents of the deceased and the injured for the injures sustained by them in the accident, claiming various amounts of compensation. Ram Bhaj appellant in FAO 1215 of 1997 filed claim petition, MACT No. 46 of 1991, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for the injuries suffered by him. Similarly, Nirmala Devi, Balwant Singh and Manju Bala appellants in F. A. O. s 1216, 1217 and 1218 of 1997 filed separate claim petitions, MACT Cases 50, 49 and 51 of 1991 respectively claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them. Another claim petition, MACT Case No. 39 of 1991 was filed by Megha Gupta and Shilpa Gupta, two minor daughters through their maternal grandfather, next friend and guardian ad-litem, Sadhu Ram claiming compensation for the deaths of their father Vinod Gupta and mother Anita as also for the injuries sustained by themselves in the said accident. As noticed above, all these six petitions were disposed of by the learned Tribunal by a single award alongwith many other claim petitions and various amounts as mentioned hereinafter were awarded as compensation.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants in all the six appeals submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. Learned counsel submitted that it was a horrible accident in which many persons lost their life and many sustained serious injuries. They remained admitted in different hospitals and underwent long treatment besides suffering severe pain and even some of them were minor who remained under shock for quite some time. He thus submitted that the compensation deserves to be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and fair and there is no scope for any enhancement.