JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. These four appeals arise out of one accident. LPA Nos. 859 of 1986 and 104 of 1987 have been filed by the claimants with the prayer that the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge be enhanced. LPA Nos. 23 and 24 of 1987 have been filed by the State Government with the plea that the scooter driver having been found to be negligent, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had rightly rejected the claim for compensation. It is maintained that the learned Single Judge has erred in awarding the compensation. A few facts may be noticed.
2. On July 8, 1980, Kanchi Lal was driving his Scooter No. DAK-4793. Amin Chand was sitting on the pillion. The scooter had an accident with Haryana Roadways Bus No. HRC-7601 which was being driven by Bharat Singh. Kanchi Lal died on the spot. Amin Chand died on his way to the hospital. Both were young and in their early thirties. While Kanchi Lal was 34 years old, Amin Chand was aged 33 years. Both left behind their widows and minor children.
3. An examination of the evidence, the Accident Claims Tribunal found that Kanchi Lal was doing business of selling lubricants. He was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month. Amin Chand was working as a salesman. His salary was Rs. 700/- per month. On this basis, it was held that the families of the two deceased persons had suffered a loss of Rs. 735/- per month and Rs. 465/- per month respectively. Even though, it was held that a multiplier of 12 would be applicable, yet, the claim was rejected by the Tribunal with the finding that Kanchi Lal was negligent in driving the scooter.
4. Both sets of claimants filed appeals before this Court. The learned Single Judge held that the Tribunal was wrong in rejecting the claim for compensation. It was found that the bus driver was negligent inasmuch as he did not apply the brakes. If he had done his job, the two would not have been killed. The bus driver having been found to be negligent, the claim for compensation was upheld. It was also found that the Tribunal had erred in fixing the multiplier at 12. The learned Single Judge found that a multiplier of 16 should have been applied. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, both sets of claimants as also the State Government have filed the present four appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
6. Mr. Malhotra, counsel for the claimants has contended that the learned Single Judge has wrongly fixed the amount of dependency of Rs. 735/- and Rs. 465/- per month respectively. It has also been submitted that the multiplier of 18 should have been applied. Learned counsel has referred to the decisions of this court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mrs. Satya Devi and Ors., (1991-2)96 P.L.R. 629 and Smt. Shakuntla Devi and Ors. v. Haryana Roadways, through the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Ambala and Ors., (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 443.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Bishnoi, counsel for the appellants in LPA Nos. 23 and 24 of 1987 has contended that the scooter driver was clearly negligent and that the learned Single Judge has erred in reversing the finding recorded by the Tribunal.
8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that on the basis of the evidence on record, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is absolutely just and fair. It is no doubt true that Kanchi Lal had left being a widow and four minor children while Amin Chand had three minor children besides the widow. Yet, keeping in view their respective ages and the nature of job, the view taken by the learned Single Judge regarding the amount which each of the deceased persons could be contributing towards the upkeep of the family cannot be said to be grossly arbitrary or unfair. Equally, even the multiplier as applied by the learned Single Judge is in conformity with the ages of the two deceased persons. On a cumulative consideration of the entire case, we find no illegality which may warrant interference in a letters Patent Appeal.
9. Mr. Bishnoi contends that the scooter driver was negligent. He was driving the scooter on the wrong side of the bus and had suddenly come in front thereof, with the result that he did not give even a reasonable opportunity to the bus driver of save him.
10. We are unable to accept this contention. On examination of the evidence and in particular the fact that the dead body of the scooterist was lying at a distance of five yards at the backside of the bus, it has been held that the bus driver had not maintained a distance of 10 to 15 yards from the vehicle in front. As a result, he was unable to save the scooter driver. The finding is based on appreciation of evidence. It calls for no interference in a Letters Patent Appeal.
11. The decisions relied upon by the counsel for the appellants are clearly distinguishable on facts. The learned Single Judge having exercised discretion, no ground for interference is made out.
12. Resultantly, all the four appeals are dismissed. No costs.