Haryana Roadways vs Smt. Shakuntla Devi and another

S.S. Sodhi, J.—On 14-6-1971 Haryana Rordvvays Bus No. HRA: 1267 left Chandigarh for Delhi at 10.30 A.M. when this bus reached the Mohri Nullah a little beyond Ambala at 12.20 P.M., it hit the side of the bridge and fell into the river bed Five persons travelling in this bug were killed and a number of other passengers were injured. Amongst the persons killed was Dr. Brijendra Singh Yadav who had got on this bus at Chandigarh and was proceeding to Delhi.

Dr. Brijendra Singh was an employee of the Government of Rajasthan in the Department of Animal Husbandry. He died leaving behind his widow Shakuntla Devi and three minor children besides his aged parents. An application u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by Shakuntla Devi and the other persons referred to above seeking Rs. 3 lacs as compensation on account of the death of the deceased.

The Tribunal held that the accident in this case had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and held the claimants entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 1,63,400/-.

There is clearly no scope to justify any challenge to the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence of the bus driver in this case. The manner and circumstances in which the accident took place clearly attract principle of res ipsa loquitor in as much as buses do not normally fall from road bridges without negligence. In the present case it will be seen that the bridge in question was a wide enough to permit two vehicles to go across at the same time. There is no suggestion of any bad weather or defect in the functioning of the bus which could provide any excuse for the bus to have fallen down from the bridge. The plea sought to be put forth on behalf of the bus driver and the other respondents was to the effect that when the bus reached the bridge there was a truck going ahead of it and another truck came there from the opposite direction came at a very fast speed which, on account of the slope of the bridge, could not be seen by the bus driver. In order to avoid a collision with this on coming truck, the bus driver swerved his vehicle a little towards bis left. Unfortunately there happend to be a weak spot at the foot of the railing of the bridge which could not bear its weight and it consequently collapsed with the result that the bus rolled down on to its left side into the rivulet. It was, thus, pleaded that the accident had not taken place on account of any negligence of the bus driver.

There is no material on record to suggest that there was any weak spot in any part of the bridge which could lend credence to this plea At any rate even if it be assumed that there was a truck coming from the opposite direction it is significant to note that there is no suggestion that the truck was coming on its wrong side to pose any danger thereby to this bus, the bridge being wide enough to allow both vehicles to pass.

The record of this case would show that the eye-witness account of the accident has been given in a straight forward and consistent manner by PW5 Sunita Kumari and PW6 Karuana Kumari who were both travelling in the bus at the time of the accident. The injuries suffered by them in this accident put their presence at the relevant time beyond doubt. There is then PW7 Kamal Singh another passengers on whose statement the first information report was recorded. Besides this, there is also the testimony of two other passengers namely PW13-A Dalbir Kaur and PW14 Bharat Rattan. All these witnesses deposed that the bus was being driven in a very rash and negligent manner by its driver and the accident took place entirely due to the fault of the bus driver. They all denied the suggestion that there was any truck going ahead of this bus on the bridge when it went off the bridge The only witness examined in support of the plea put forth by the bus driver was the conductor of the bus PW1 Dharam Singh but his testimony too is such that it cannot absolve the bus driver from blame, as also the finding of negligence against him. It must accordingly be held that the Tribunal rightly came to the finding that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligence driving of the bus driver.

The challenge in this case was mainly to the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation that the claimants were entitled to. As has been mentioned above, the Tribunal had awarded a compensation amounting to Rs. 1,63,400/-. Mr. L.M. Suri, appearing for the claimants conceded that the basis on which the compensation had been computed by the Tribunal could not be sustained In this view of the matter the compensation that the claimants are entitled to must, thus, be worked out having regard to the matters which have come on record.

Dr. Barjinder Singh deceased was a little over 29 years of age at the time of his death, his date of birth being 21-3-1942. He was employed in the Department of Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan and was returning to Rajasthan after attending an interview for the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon in Haryana The record shows that on 11-10-1971 i.e. after the death of the deceased, his name figured in the list of persons recommended by the Haryana Public Service Commission for appointment to this post This is relevant in the matter of considering his future prospects had he lived. The deceased was employed in the scale of Rs. 27,6 50 and at the time of his death his total emoluments were Rs. 536/- per month.

It will be relevant to advert here to the Full Bench decision of our High Court in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur (1979) 81 P.L.R. 1 where it was observed that the compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by the death of the deceased and for the purpose of calculating the just compensation, annual dependency of the dependants should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life For this purpose annual earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependants will be determining factor This basic figure will then be multiplied by a suitable multiplier. It was further observed that the suitable multiplier shall be determined by taking into consideration the number of years of the dependency of the various dependants, the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and the various imponderable factors such as early natural death of the deceased, his becoming incapable of supporting the dependants due to illness or any other natural handcap or calamity, the prospects of the re marriage of the widow, the coming up of the age of the dependants and their developing independant sources of income as well as the pecuniary benefits which might accrue to the dependants on account of the death of the person concerned.

The Full Bench authority referred to above came up for consideration before a Division Bench consisting of S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. and Surinder Singh, J., in Asha Rani and others v. Union of India (1982) 84 P.L.R. 486 where it was held that the normal multiplier is sixteen and it can rise to a maximum of twenty, virtually as the outer limit. It was further observed that the primary purpose of compensation to the dependents is to provide them a consolidated fund of money which would continue to yield annual financial support which the deceased was providing to his dependents; in other words, the amount which would guarantee the availability of an equivalent annual financial income to them.

The compensation payable to the claimants in this case has, thus, to be computed on the principles laid down in the two authorities referred to above.

As has been shown above, the total emoluments of the deceased at the time of his death were 536/- P.M. He died leaving behind his young widow and three minor children besides his aged parents. There were bright prospects for the deceased as is evident from the fact that his name was recommended for appointment as Assistant Veterinary Surgeon by the Haryana Public Service Commission There was, thus, a reasonable prospect of the deceased improving his financial position by getting higher salary. In is also noteworthy that in view of his qualifications he could be expected to earn some amount besides his pension after his retirement from service. Keeping these factors in view it will be reasonable to accept the loss to the dependants to be to the tune of Rs. 450/- P.M. as was found by the Tribunal.

The question now to be considered is as to the suitable multiplier to be applied to this case. The normal multiplier has, no doubt, been taken to be sixteen but Mr. L.M. Suri, Learned Counsel for the claimants sought to contend that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the multiplier in the present case should be twenty. He adverted in this behalf to the young age of the dependents, the widow herself being only 25 years of age. He also laid great stress upon the fact that the deceased too was only 29 years of age at the time of his death and was a doctor, a profession which had no retirement age and he could, thus, be expected to continue working till atleast the age of 65 years, if not longer. Besides this there was also a history of longevity in the family. It was also emphasized that besides the deceased holding a pensionable post he had also available to him the normal facilities extended to government servants like free medical aid and subsidised residential accommodation or house-rent allowance.

The factors adverted to above do, indeed, justify a departure from the normal rule of applying a multiplier of sixteen. The appropriate multiplier in this case must clearly be taken to be twenty. Computed on this basis, the claimants must be held entitled to a compensation amounting to Rs. 1,08,000/- (450 x 12 x 20 = 1,08,000/- ). The claimants are thus, awarded this amount and, in additional, interest 10% per annum on the amount awarded from the date of the application to the date of payment thereof. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- each shall be paid as compensation to the parents of the deceased, 40,000/- to the widow Shakuntla Devi while the balance amount of Rs. 60,000/- shall be payable in equal shares to the three minor children of the deceased The award of the Tribunal is accordingly modified to this extent This appeal is, thus, partly accepted. There will however, be no order as to costs.