G.R. Majithia, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of F.A.O. No. 68 of 1986 and cross-objection No. 67 CII of 1986. The .claimants, aggrieved against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) have come up in appeal for enhancement of compensation. The Insurance Company has filed the cross-objections for dismissing the appeal.
2. The facts:
Husband and the progenies of the deceased Ram Watt" moved a claim petition under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short the Act) on the ground that the deceased had gone to visit a neighbour in Kablijee Hospital Ghamroj at about 10-12 noon on September 28,1983. She was waiting for a bus to return to Sohna, when a half body truck bearing registration No. HRU 995 suddenly swerved from the pacca road to the kacha portion and hit the deceased causing her instantaneous death; the truck was being driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by Kamroo respondent No. 2. The deceased was 35 years of age at the time of the accident and she used to carry out the entire management of the house and look after her minor children and other members of the family. She also assisted her husband in the business; her death resulted in a loss to the tune of Rs. 1,600/- per mensem to the claimants.
3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 controverted the allegations made in the petition and pleaded that the petition was time barred; that the amount claimed was excessive; that the truck was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
4. Respondent No. 3, The United India Insurance Company filed separate written statement and contested the claim of the petitioner and pleaded that no accident was caused by truck bearing registration No. HRU 995 as alleged. In addition they also took all the pleas available under Section 96 read with Section 110C(2A)(i)(ii)of the Act.
5. On the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the accident took place due to the alleged rash or negligent driving of truck No. HRU 995 driven by Kamru respondent No. 2? OPP
(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what compensation if any, are the petitioners entitled and from whom? OPP
(3) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle had not a valid driving licence at the time of accident? If so its effect? OPR 3.
(4) Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file the petition? OPR 1 &2
(5) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 1 & 2
6. Under issue No. 1 it was found by the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. HRU 995 by respondent No. 2. Under issue No. 2, the Tribunal found that after the death of Smt. Ram Wati, the domestic help had to be obtained from a maid servant and a servant and on ultimate analysis it held that the death of the deceased caused a financial loss to the tune of Rs. 3,500/- per annum. Applying a multiplier of 16, the Tribunal found that the claimants are entitled to a compensation in the sum of Rs. 56,000/-. The learned Counsel for the claimants could not satisfy me that the compensation awarded was inadequate on the material produced on record. The learned Tribunal exercised its discretion fairly and I find no ground to interfere with the same..
7. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company could not raise any meaningful argument in support of the cross-objections. Resultantly, the appeal and the cross-objections are dismissed.