D.K. Mahajan, J..
1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated the 13th March, 1961. By this award, a sum of Rs. 16,560/- with costs was awarded to the children of the deceased. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the children on the basis that each of the minor child is entitled to Rs. 30/- per mensem till he attains the age of majority and taking into account the ages of the children and the corresponding age of majority, the compensation for each one of them has been fixed as under:
Compensation fixed
Narinder Kumar, aged 13 years, Rs. 1,800/-
Sudesh Kumar, aged 9 years. Rs. 3,240/-
Rakesh Kumar, aged 7 years. Rs. 3,960/-
Romesh Kumar, aged 4 years. Rs. 5,040/-
Kumari Asha Rani, aged 11 ye: ars. Rs. 2,520/-
Thus the total compensation payable comes to Rs. 16,560/-
Against this sward the present appeal has been preferred by the widow of the deceased who has not been awarded any compensation and by the children of the deceased. The widow claims compensation for herself and on behalf of the children ; the claim is that the compensation fixed is low. The owner of the motor vehicle has preferred cross-objections. The decree was also passed against the driver of the motor vehicle. But there is neither any appeal by him nor any cross-objections.
2. The accident took place on the 13th of June, 1960. Mr. Sat Parkash deceased, husband of Mrs. Sarla Devi and the father of the children who have been allowed compensation, was seriously injured in a truck in which he was travelling. The truck (No. PNE-8125) was driven by Gulzar Singh. It is stated that the driver fell asleep with the result that the truck hit a tree and as a consequence thereof the deceased was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained serious injuries as a result of which he died. Sat Parkash was the owner of the goods which were being carried by the truck. In the claim application filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by the widow of the deceased and the children, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- was claimed. The Respondent Shrimati Sbarfi Devi, owner of the truck, was given registered notice to appear on 5th October, 1960. But she refused to accept the registered notice and it was returned with the remarks of the postman "Maktuble Lene se Ankari hai". (Addressee has refused to take it) As she refused to take notice, ex-parte proceedings were taken against her on the 5th October, 1960. The claim was contested by the insurance company. The company also made an application for permission to defend the claim in the name of the insured. However, this application was rejected by a separate order dated the 21st October, 1960. The Tribunal, however, in the interest of justice cross-examined the witnesses ; so also the counsel for the company. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent act of the driver. The Tribunal has negatived the claim of the widow on the ground that she has come into possession of assets to the tune of Rs. 32,000/- which belonged to the deceased and on which the interest, which will accrue, comes to Rs. 1,920/-. According to the Tribunal, this was sufficient provision for the widow. The Tribunal, however, assessed that each of the children was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/-per mensem till majority and on that basis allowed a sum of Rs. 16,560/- to the children of the deceased. As already said this appeal is by the widow of the deceased and the children and the claim in appeal is for enhancement of the compensation. The owner of the vehicle Mrs. Sharfi Devi has filed cross-objections.
3. I will first dispose of the cross-objections. Mr. Roop Chand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, Sharfi Devi, has argued that she was not served with a notice of the proceedings that were taken on the claim application of the claimants. According to the learned Counsel, service by registered post is no service, it is argued that personal service should have been effected on his client. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the provisions of the CPC do not apply. So far as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are concerned ; they make no provision for personal service. All that is required under the Act is that before the award is made the Tribunal has to give an opportunity to the parties so that they are heard [Section 110 (B)]. The opportunity in the present case was given to the Respondent. She refused to avail of that opportunity inasmuch as she refused to accept notice. It is also significant that she did not appeal against the ex-parte award against her. She also took no steps before the Tribunal after the ex-parte order, to get the same set aside, on the plea that the report of the postal authorities that she refused to accept service, was incorrect. In this situation, the contention that she was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard is not made out. On the merits, Mr. Roop Chand has very little to say. He has not been able to point out any defect in the award of the Tribunal. For the reasons recorded above, the cross-objections fail and are dismissed.
4. So far as the claimant''s appeal is concerned, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration that on the death of the partner the value of his one fifth share will also become available to the claimants. This clearly fortifies the award of the Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the widow. So far as the award of compensation to the children is concerned, it does not call for any enhancement. In my opinion, they have been awarded proper compensation, in this view of the matter, this appeal also fails and is dismissed ; but there will be no order as to costs either in the cross-objections or in the appeal.
