BIMLA Vs. PRITAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Gulzar Rathore, Advocate has stated that appellant No.1 Het Ram has died and this appeal in so far as he is concerned has abated. In the claim petition, the name of claimant-appellant No.1 shall be deleted.

(2.) WITH respect to an accident occurring on the night intervening 27/28th October, 1987 relating to Truck No. HPS-4466, a Claim Petition was filed by the claimants for claiming compensation on account of the loss suffered by them owing to the death of deceased Durga Singh, the son of appellant-claimant No.1 Het Ram, husband of

(3.) FINDING on Issue No.1 was returned in favour of the claimants. Apparently because finding on Issue No.4 went against the claimants-appellants, the learned Tribunal in so far as Issue No.2 is concerned neither determined the quantum of compensation nor decided this Issue properly because as per the clear language employed in this Issue, a finding had to be returned as to whether the claimants were entitled, on proof of Issue No.1, to receive any compensation, and if so how much, and from whom. Based upon its findings upon Issues No.3 and 4 against the claimants, the Tribunal went on to decide that because the vehicle was not insured with respondent No.2 and since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the Truck, respondent No.2 was not liable to pay any amount of compensation. There cannot be any quarrel with these findings and these findings very fairly and frankly have not even been challenged before me today by Mr. Rathore during the hearing of this case. Mr. Rathore's contention, however, is that even though the Tribunal absolved respondent No.2 of its liability to pay any compensation to the claimants, firstly on the ground that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the truck and secondly because the vehicle was not insured with respondent No.2, the Tribunal ought to have decided whether respondents No.1 and 3 were liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, especially in view of the Tribunal's finding on Issue No.1 and if yes, to what amount of compensation were the claimants entitled. I fully agree with this contention of Mr. Rathore and do find that the Tribunal erred in not deciding Issue No.2 with respect to both the aforesaid aspects.