RANJEETMAL HARAN Vs. SANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four appeals and to cross objections are directed against the Award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jodhpur dated 6. 4. 1985 in MACT Cases No. 55/79 and 56/79. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Case No. 55/79 has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased Gopichand whereas MACT Case No. 56/79 has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased Shankerlal. Gopichand happens to be the son of deceased Shankerlal.

(2.) AS both MACT Cases No. 55/79 and 56/79 were tried together and were disposed of by a common order and raise common question, I propose to decide all these four appeals and two cross-objections simultaneously by common order.

(3.) CERTAIN issues were framed after consolidation of both these claim cases and thereafter, the evidence was recorded on behalf of the claimants. No body was examined on behalf of the non-applicants and hence, after hearing the parties the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Iqbal Mohd. and, therefore, issue No. 1. was decided in favour of the claimants and against the non-applicants. As regards issue no. 2, it has been held that at the time of the accident, Iqbal Mohd. was in the service of Shri Ranjeetmal Haran but he was not in the employment of Shri Jaymal Singh. As regards issue No. 3, it has been held held Mst. Santosh, Mst. Bhanwari, Mst. Hulasidevi and deceased Gopi-chand's son Ramkishore were dependent on the deceased persons. Nemichand and Smt. Durga were living separately from the deceased persons. The learned Tribunal has, therefore, held that only Mst. Santosh, Mst. Bhanwari, Mst. Hulasi Devi and Ramkishore are entitled to compensation. Nemichand and Smt. Durga were held to be not entitled to compensation, on account of these two accidental deaths.