The Himachal Roadways Transport Corporation vs Sarwani Devi and Others

D.V. Sehgal, J.—The present first appeal from order by the Hitnachal Roadways Corporation, the appellant-owner of bus No. HPS-3430, is directed against the award dated 1-10-1982 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh.

A claim application u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by Sent. Sarwani Devi, widow of Kartar Chand deceased, and his six children, who are respondents Nos. 1 to 7 in this appeal claiming compensation amount to Rs. 2,90,000/- on account of the death of Kartar Chand as a result of an accident with the aforesaid bus. It was alleged that on 2-9-1980 the deceased was going on his bicycle towards his village Palsora, U.T. Chandigarh. Khushi Ram Sarpanch was sitting on the pillion of the bicycle. When they were going in front of the shops in village Attawa on the metalled road at about 9-30 P.M. the aforesaid bus came from behind at a very high speed from the crossing of Sectors 35 and 36, Chandigarh. On noticing the bus, Khushi Ram Sarpanch, the pillion rider, jumped off the cycle and got aside. The bus which was being driven by Chet Ram respondent No. 8 in a very rash and negligent manner hit Kartar Chand and ran over him and his bicycle. Respondent No. 8 did not stop the bus. Khushi Ram and other two persons, namely, Vishwa Mittar and Raj Kumar, who were standing nearby, shouted and ran after the bus. It was then only that respondent No. 8 stopped the bus. He along with the conductor of the bus, however, ran away from the spot leaving the bus there.

A joint written statement was filed on behalf of the appellant and respondent No. 8 wherein they stated that the accident too place entirely due to the negligence of the deceased and his companion Khushi Ram. The bus was being driven at a proper speed and on the correct side of the road when its lights were on. On seeing the cyclist ahead respondent No. 8 blew the horn. The person sitting on the pillion of the cycle viz. Khushi Ram, became panicky and jumped off the bicycle giving a big jolt to it and the cyclist. As a result the cyclist lost control to his bicycle and it was pushed to the right. The bicycle and the cyclist fell in the middle of the road. The bus driver was taken by surprise as he could not anticipate that the cyclist would fall in the centre of the road all of a sudden. Thus, the accident took place entirely due to the negligence of the cyclist and his companion.

On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 1 resulting in the death of Shri Kartar Chand ?

(2) To how much compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled to and from which of the respondents.

(3) Relief.

After recording evidence, the learned Tribunal returned a finding on issue No. (1) in the affirmative and held that Chet Ram, driver of the bus, respondent No. 8 herein, was responsible for the accident as he was driving the bus rashly and negligently. Under issue No. 2, it was held that the widow and the children of the deceased were entitled to the payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 1,60,000/-, which was awarded along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum till realisation of the amount.

The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended before me that the finding recorded by the leaned Tribunal on issue No. (1) is erroneous. He sought to take support for his argument from the fact that in the accident the right head-light of the bus had been smashed. The front wheel of the cycle and its paddle on the right side had been damaged. From this, he sought to conclude that the deceased was plying the cycle in the centre of the road unmindful of the approaching bus and was thus run over by the bus which was entirely due to his own negligence. This contention, in my view, has no force. As rightly pointed out by the learned Tribunal, had the deceased been run over by the bus, his body would have been reduced to pulp. He, however, received had injury which proved to be fatal. It is, thus, clear that his cycle struck against the right front portion of the bus. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal that respondent No. 8 rashly driving the bus tried to over-take the cyclist from the wrong side and that is why the right side of the bus hit the cyclist is, in my view, a reasonable and correct finding. When the bus hit the cycle, the deceased was thrown on the ground and he received head injury. The front wheel of the cycle was run over. Its paddle on the right side must have been damaged in the process. It has been admitted by respondent No. 8 that he noticed the cyclist from a distance of 30 feet. If it was so, he could have applied the brakes and saved the cyclist but that could only be if he was driving the bus at a speed of 30 Kms. per hour as pleaded by him The very fact that he could not apply the brakes and save the cyclist shows that he was driving the same rashly and negligently. After hitting the cyclist he did not stop the bus. When on raising noise by the witnesses to the accident he was forced to stop the bus, he and the cenductor ran away from the. spot. It clearly exhibits lack of sense of responsibility and negligence on the part of respondent No. 8. I, therefore affirm the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1.

Now coming to issue No (2), the learned Tribunal has found that the deceased was a building contractor and his income was about Rs. 1,000/- per month, i.e. Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Since he had a large family to support, he must be spending not less than Rs. 10,000/- per annum of his wife and six children. The deceased was aged about 50 years. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the principles laid down in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 PLR 1, applied a multiplier of 16 and has worked out compensation payable to the respondents at Rs. 1,60,000/-. The learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any error in this finding. The claimant-respondents Nos. 1 to 7, however, through cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, have sought enhancement in the amount of compensation. They claim that since the deceased was only 50 years of age and the normal life-expectancy is 70 years, multiplier of 20" should have been applied for working out the amount of compensation. They have also made a grievance against inadequate rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal. It was claimed that the interest on the amount of compensation should have been awarded at 18% per annum. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the claimant-respondents. I find no ground to apply the multiplier exceeding 16 for working out the compensation payable to them. I, however, find that interest at the rate of 6% per annum awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate. The claimants are entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of their claim application filed before the Tribunal till the date of payment of the amount of compensation to them.

Consequently, 1 dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-objections to the extent that instead of interest at the rate of 6% per annum the claimant-respondents shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the institution of application before the learned Tribunal till the date of payment of the amount of compensation to them. There shall be no order as to costs.