Kela Devi and Others vs Balwant Singh and Others

S.B. Wad, J.—This is an appeal filed by the heirs of the deceased, Banarsi Dass, for enhancement of compensation. They had claimed compensation of Rs. 80,000/- while the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 15,453/- by way of compensation. The accident took place on 27th August, 1965 at about 7.00 a.m. in front of Kothi No. 14, Satya Wati Marg, New Delhi, when Mr. Banarsi Dass was alighting from bus No. DLP 3220 in which he was travelling. When his one foot was on the foot-board and the other was on the ground, the bus speeded up, Banarsi Dass fell down and was run over by the bus. He received multiple injuries and consequently died due to the said injuries. The Tribunal has recorded the following findings as regards the death of Banarsi Dass in the accident and the liability of bus No. DLP 3220 for the accident in para 13 as follows:

From the statements of Ami Lal PW 2, Tara Chand s/o Musaddi Lal PW 6,and Tarachand s/o Tika Ram PW 7, it is fully established that the- bus No. DLP 3220 stopped in front of Kothi No. 14 and while the deceased was in the process of getting down from the said bus and his one foot was on the road and the other on the bus, the said bus all of a sudden moved as a result of which Banarsi Dass deceased fell on the road and was run over by the left rear wheels of the bus. The Respondents have not adduced any evidence in the case in order to establish that the deceased jumped out of the moving bus. Even the driver, Respondent No. 2 has not appeared in the witness box in support of the version put forth by him in his statement. The action of the Respondent No. 2 in moving the bus while the deceased was in the process of alighting from the same, was clearly rash and negligent driving.

There is a cross-objection filed by the Respondents in the present appeal. The counsel for the parties have taken me through the evidence on record and through the statements of the various witnesses for Petitioners/claimants. Although it is difficult to agree with the Tribunal for rejecting the evidence of some witnesses, I am in complete agreement with the Tribunal that the evidence of PW 2, PW 6 and PW 7 is a-completely reliable evidence. Counsel for the Respondents could not persuade me to take a different view as there is no material to rely on in record. The Respondents had not produced any evidence in support of their theory that it was the deceased Banarsi Dass who jumped from the running bus and was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has rightly noted that even the bus driver was not examined to support the version of the Respondents. I fully agree with the Tribunal that the death of Banarsi Dass was caused by rash and negligent driving of bus No. DLP 3220.

Banarsi Dass was working as teacher and his age was 35 years at the time of his death. He was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 316/- from his school: It was claimed by his wife, who appeared as witness, that he was earning Rs. 100/- in addition by way of tuitions. The Tribunal has rejected the claim for the amount of Rs. 100/- earned by way of tuition fees on the ground that the wife was an interested witness. But after discarding the consideration of the said amount of Rs. 100/- the Tribunal has included the said amount in the personal expenses of the deceased, which he would have made. The Tribunal held that the personal expenses of the deceased would come to Rs. 130/- per month and Rs. 186/- would be left for the family. The family of the deceased Banarsi Dass consisted of himself, his wife and 5 minor children. The Tribunal further held that minor children should be taken as a half unit and the widow as one unit. Thereafter, the Tribunal surmised that Rs. 20/- would be required to support the minor children and Rs. 40/- for a month for the widow. The loss was thus worked out at Rs. 22,080/-. After deduction of Rs. 3,900/- of the insurance and provident fund which the family had received, the Tribunal made a further deduction of 15 per cent for the lump sum payment and for uncertainties of life. Thus a sum of Rs. 15,453/- was arrived at as an adequate compensation by the Tribunal.

The approach of the Tribunal is wholly erroneous. It was argued by the counsel for the Respondents that the deceased used to come to Delhi from his village by a bus and therefore the bus fare should be treated as an additional expense of the deceased over and above the normal maintenance expenses. It may be noted that Banarsi Dass was supporting a family of 7 with a meagre income of Rs. 316/- per month that he was drawing. The minors were school going children whose growing expenses for education should have been taken into account. Out of 5,3 are minor daughters. Therefore, the responsibility for expenses for their marriage is also an important aspect which should have been borne in mind. Considering the number of members of the family, I take Rs. 65/- per month as personal expenses of deceased Banarsi Dass including his travel expenses. After deducting the said amount, it would well be taken that Banarsi Dass would have contributed a sum of Rs. 250/- per month for the family support. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier of 20 years under assumption that the deceased would have made a safe contribution upto the age of 55 years. No reason is stated for this finding. Normally now, considering the increasing longevity, the age is taken to be 65 years. But, even if the multiplier of 20 is not disturbed, the compensation will work out to Rs. 60,000/-. As the law stands, no deduction can be made for the insurance and the provident fund amount which they officially received. Considering the above circumstances, I hold that Rs. 60,000/- would be a just compensation in this case. The claimants are also entitled to a simple interest at 6 per cent from March 1970 till the date of payment. The insurance company, Respondent No. 3 will be liable to pay Rs. 2,000/- as that was the rate of liability for the insurer u/s 95(2)(b). This liability is fixed by the statute for the death of a passenger travelling in a bus which has the permissible capacity of more than 6 passengers. The said liability is now raised to Rs. 15,000/- by the amendment of 1982. But, we are concerned with the statutory provisions as in 1965 when the accident took place. The liability of the insurance company would, therefore, be only Rs. 2,000/-. The Respondent No. 2 the owner of the bus shall be liable to the balance of the compensation amount and interest. The Respondents are directed to make payment within 3 months from now.

The appeal of the claimants to the extent of enhanced compensation is allowed. The cross-objections to the extent of reducing the liability from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- is also allowed. There shall be no orders as to cost.