M.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Chandra and Others

B.C. Varma, J.—The order of this appeal also dispose of Misc. First Appeal No. 102 of 1981.

On 24-9-1975 at about 9 P.M. near Collectorate, Bhopal Bus MPC-1403 driven by respondent Kishorilal and owned by the appellant, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal and Motor-cycle No. MPD-1967 driven by deceased Holaram carrying him with pillion rider Ainshiram collided against each other. Ainshiram died on the spot while Holaram died in the hospital. Dependents and heirs of the deceased Holaram and Ainshiram filed two separate claim petitions before the Claims Tribunal Bhopal alleging that Kishorilal drove that Bus rashly and negligently and, therefore, Kishorilal and his employer-M.P.S.R T C Bhopal were liable to pay compensation to that on account of death of Holaram and Ainshiram. While contesting the claims and denying their liability the appellant and Kishorilal submitted that not Kishorilal but Holaram was guilty of negligently driving the Motor-cycle which dashed against the Bus when it was brought to a stand still seeing Motor-cycle approaching it from the front in a zig-zag manner. Evidence was led by the parties. The claimants examined two persons i.e. Kishan Chand (PW 4) and Gurnamal (PW 5) as eye witnesses of the incident while Kishorilal examining himself described the incident in his own way. The learned Claims Tribunal found Kishorilal as well as Holaram jointly responsible for the accident and held both of them negligent in the use of the vehicles. Accordingly, Claims Tribunal held Kishorilal and Holaram jointly negligent and apportioned the negligence between them in equal shares. Holaram''s annual income was assessed at Rs. 5,400/- at the time of his death and looking to his age as 40 yrs. at the time of death, the multiplier was taken as twelve. Dependency was assessed at Rs. 200/- per month and thus, the compensation was assessed at Rs. 28,800/-. Since Kishorilal was held only jointly negligent with Holaram and since the negligence was apportioned in equal shares, the actual compensation payable was reduced to half the assessed compensations. Appellant and Kishorilal have, therefore, been held liable to pay Rs. 14,400/- to the heirs and dependents of deceased Holaram. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation has filed Misc. Appeal No. 101/81 against the compensation awarded on account of death of Holaram. His heirs have also filed cross-objection claiming enhancement of the compensation and have also challenged the finding regarding the negligence to be contributory.

Ainshiram who at the time of death was aged about 42 years was found to be running small tea-stall. It is held that he could contribute at the most Rs. 250/- per month for maintenance to his dependents and, therefore, the dependency was assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per year. Looking to his age and his life span the multiplier was taken at fourteen and the compensation was thus assessed at Rs. 42,000/-. Again as in the other case arising on account of death of Holaram, here too amount actually payable as compensation was reduced to half and thus finally Rs. 21,000/- have been awarded as compensation to the dependents and heirs of deceased Ainshiram. They are all respondents in Misc. First Appeal No. 102 of 1981. It is filed by the M.P.S.R.T.C. questioning that award. They have also filed cross-objection.

There is no doubt nor was it contested at any stage that two persons viz , Holaram the driver of the Motor-cycle and Ainshirarn the pillion rider died as a consequence of the collision of the Motor-cycle and the Bus driven by Kishorilal, who at the relevant time was working in the employment of the appellant M.P.S.R.T.Corpporation While in appeals the negligence imputed to Kishorilal has been questioned, in the cross-objsction the negligent driving attributed to Holaram has been challenged. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties who led us through the entire evidence on record, we are of opinion that the Claims Tribunal cannot be said in error in holding both the drivers'' negligent. Kishorilal has deposed that the Motorcycle approached the Bus from opposite direction in a zig-zag manner and that the driver of the Motor-cycle viz., Holaram had lost control over the vehicle. Although Kishan Chand (PW 4) and Gurnamal (PW 5) examined on behalf of the claimants have denied this fact, yet we feel that in this regard Kishori Lal''s version is more probable because we find from the post-mortem examination report of Holaram that the gastric contents gave out alcoholic smell. This would show that soon before the accident Holaram had consumed liquor. Basumal (PW 1) is the brother of deceased Holaram. He has clearly deposed that Holaram was addicted to drinking. Apart from this, we also find from the photographs showing the place of accident that the Motor-cycle was on the middle of the road when the accident took place. This makes it clear that Holaram was driving the motor-cycle regardless of all rules and carelessly. We are not prepared to believe the version of the two alleged eye-witnesses to say that Holaram was driving the motor-cycle from his left side of the road and the speed was slow. Instead, in view of the facts so found we agree with the Claims Tribunal that Holaram was negligent in driving the motor-cycle and at the relevant time had practically no control over it. Holaram has been rightly found to be negligent in driving the motor-cycle.

Defending Kishorilal it was argued that he had seen the motorcycle from a distance of about 300 to 400 yards and had brought it to a standstill when the motor-cycle dashed against it. This suggestion is completely belied from the evidence on the record. The spot map and the photographs (Ex. NA 4-A) exhibited in the case show that Kishorilal had to make effort to stop the Bus. The tyre marks left over on the road show that even alter applying the brakes the Bus dragged to a distance of about 30 to 40 feet. The photographs also show that the Bus was right on the middle of the road. Position of the Bus and the motor-cycle indicates that the motorcycle did not dash against a standing vehicle. Kishorilal himself admits that he had seen the motor-cycle approaching the Bus in zig-zag manner from a distance of about 400 yards. If he really meant to avoid the accident and really the speed was even moderate, he could well have taken his Bus to the extreme left side of the road and brought it to a stand-still. The accident could well have been averted. Obviously, the oral and documentary evidence on record speaks to the contrary. Kishorilal was clearly negligent in driving the Bus at the time it collided against the motor-cycle. Both the drivers of the Bus and the Motor-cycle have, therefore, been rightly found careless and negligent in driving their respective vehicles.

We also see no reason to interfere with apportionment of negligence between the two drivers equally. Learned Counsel on either side could not point out any circumstance to fix the negligence in any other proportion. That finding of the Claims Tribunal is also affirmed.

This brings us to the question of quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimants. The appellant did not seriously contest the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal but the learned Counsel for the claimants in both the appeals was at pains to submit that the compensation awarded in both the cases is somewhat low. We, however, find from the evidence on record that it cannot be said that in arriving at the amount to be awarded as compensation, the Claims Tribunal either overlooked some evidence in a case or applied a wrong principle. It was, however, pointed out that the Claims Tribunal wrongly read the Income Tax returns of the deceased Holaram who was ''A'' class contractor as returns submitted on behalf of joint family. Even it be so, those Income Tax returns related to the year 1972-73 and do not seem be of much relevance in assessing the income of the deceased Holaram at the time of accident. As no Income Tax returns of the year 1974-75 were filed, the Claims Tribunal was justified in accepting the version of deceased''s brother Basumal (PW 1) in that behalf. It is after accepting that version that the compensation has been determined. The claimants cannot be heard to question that evidence adduced by themselves. In our opinion, Rs. 5,400/- per year cannot be said to be unreasonable assessment of income of deceased Holaram in absence of any documentary evidence. The annual dependency has also been rightly taken up at Rs. 200/- per month. The Claims Tribunal has taken the span of life of the deceased Holaram as sixty years and thus the multiplier adopted is 12. It was suggested that this multiplier is a little too low. Decisions have been cited to show that normally 15 or 16 is taken as the multiplier. Even so in the circumstances of this case decision of the Claims Tribunal in assuming 12 as the multiplier cannot be said to be such and may call for the interference in appeal. That being so, the amount of compensation determined cannot be interfered with. In case of compensation for the death of Ainshiram nothing much worth mentioning was submitted. We, therefore, uphold the assessment of compensation as done by the Claims Tribunal.

It was lastly urged that the amount of interest these days is usually awarded at the rate of 2% per annum. The Claims Tribunal in the present case has awarded interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum. There is no statutory obligation on the Claims Tribunal to award any particular rate. The interest awarded at the rate of 6% per annum by ''the Claims Tribunal, therefore, also cannot be interfered in these appeals.

No other point was urged.

The appeals fail and are dismissed. Consequently the cross-objections are also dismissed. Under these circumstances there shall be no order as to costs of either the appeals or the cross-objections.