JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. By this judgment I dispose of three F.A.Os. bearing No. 651 titled as The General Manager Haryana Roadways v. Ram Chander Gautam and
Ors., F.A.O. No. 652 of 1995 titled as General Manager Haryana Roadways v. H.K. Gautam and
Ors.; and F.A.O.No. 653 of 1995 titled as The General Manager Haryana Roadways v. Smt. Lakhjinder Kaur &
Ors., as all the three appeals have arisen from the award dated 10.11.1994 passed by the Court of Shri Vinod Jain Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat who disposed of three claim petitions bearing Nos. 183 of 1992, 195 of 1993 and 196 of 1993 of different claims.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners of the aforesaid claim petitions filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed compensation for the death of Darshan Singh and for the injuries suffered by Ram Chander and H.K. Gautam. The accident in this case took place on 6.7.1992 and on that day retired Major Ram Chander aged about 57 years having own private medical practice in village Adyana with his brother Dr. Hari Krishan aged 45 years who was also having his own private clinic in the name of Gautam Nursing Home and along with his two children were returning from Panipat to Sonepat after attending a marriage party in car No. UHO-3312 driven by H.K. Gautam. At about 9 P.M. they parked their car near the Bus Stand Samalkha for taking water. Hari Kishan could not start the car because of some mechanical defect. By chance, at that time a person aged 40 years came to them and told them he was a car mechanic. This person was Darshan Singh deceased who was a Mistri of Samalkha. He repaired the car of Ram Chander and then requested him to give him lift up to Panipat. Ram Chander and his brother Hari Kishan obliged Darshan Singh and when the car reached near Manana crossing on G.T. road it again stopped due to mechanical defect in the engine. The car was parked on the kacha portion and on the left side of the road. In the meanwhile Ranbir Singh who was the driver of Haryana Roadways Bus No. HR-05/7792 and whose bus was following the car could not control the vehide due to his rash and negligent driving struck the vehicle against the car, as a result of which Darshan Singh. Ram Chander and H.K. Gautam sustained multiple injuries. All the three injured were shifted to P.H.C. Samalkha where Darshan Singh mechanic died while Ram Chander and Hari Kishan sustained injuries. Hari Kishan was not having serious injuries but Ram Chander was having multiple fracture which he suffered on left leg besides other injuries. He was referred to Civil Hospital, Panipat. He was operated upon there. He remained admitted in the hospital up to 11.7.1992, from where he was shifted to the hospital of his brother and got medical treatment. According to claimant Ram Chander his injuries required one more operation over his fractured leg.
3. The claim petitions were resisted by the respondents including Ranbir Singh driver. It was admitted that Ranbir Singh was driver of the bus in question at the relevant time. The version of the contesting respondents is that accident took place due to the driving of some unknown person who had stolen the bus from bus stand Samalkha. It was pleaded that on 6.7.1992, night halt of the bus was at Samalkha. Ranbir Singh driver and Ram Kishan conductor parked the bus there and when they came in the early morning i.e. on 7.7.1992 to pick up the time they found that the bus was missing. They approached the police but the police refused to register the case. Then the driver was informed regarding this accident and case was registered against him. Driver Ranbir Singh sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police and also a telegram to the Department for his false implication but he was not heard by the police. In this manner, the contesting respondents prayed for the dismissal of the petitions.
4. The claimants filed rejoinder to the written statement in which they reiterated their allegations made in the claim petitions. All the three claim petitions were consolidated and disposed of by one award and the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
1) Whether the accident to question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Ranbir Singh respondent No.l while driving the bus bearing registration No. HR-05/7792 during the course of employment of respondents No. 2 & 3 and due to rash and negligent driving of Hari Krishan respondent No.5 while driving car bearing registration No. UHO-3312 during the course of employment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 ? OPP
2) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom ? OPP
3) Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPP
4) Relief.
5. The parties led oral and documentary evidence and it Was ultimately held by the Tribunal that Ranbir Singh was the author of the accident when he was driving the offending bus No. HR-05-7792.
6. Regarding compensation the legal representatives of Darshan Singh and the claimants of claim petition No. 183 of 1992 were awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 8,40,000/- as the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 20 years by calculating the annual dependency of 42,000/- of the claimants. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 2,65,000/- by way of compensation to Ram Chander injured. Also a sum of Rs. 49,000/- was awarded to Hari Kishan i.e. Rs. 44,000/- on account of damage caused to the car and Rs. 5,000/- for the injuries. Finally all the three claim petitions were disposed of with the operative order as contained in para No.45 of the impugned award dated 10.11.1994 quoted as follows:-
“It is hereby ordered that out of the awarded compensation of Rs. 8,40,000/- to the L.Rs. of deceased Darshan Singh 40% shall be shared by the widow and the minor of the deceased in equal and rest of 60% by all the six children in equal. The share of the children shall be deposited in fixed Deposit Receipt in some Nationalised Bank or in post office till the children attain majority, enabling the widow to withdraw the interest on such F.D.R. in case, widow re-marries, then she will not be entitled to withdraw the interest. It is further ordered that 50% of the shares of the widow and mother of the deceased would also be deposited in some fixed deposit receipt in some Nationalised Bank or in some post office, initially for a period of three years, and rest of the amount may be obtained in cash. Out of the awarded compensation of Rs. 2,65,000/- claimant Ram Chander, a sum of Rs. 2 lacs shall be deposited in Bank F.D.R., in some Nationalised Bank initially for a period of three years and rest of the amount may be obtained in cash. He shall be entitled to apply a fresh to the court for withdrawal of the amount from the said F.D.R. after a period of three years; out of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- awarded to Hari Kishan, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- shall be deposited in some F.D.R. in some Nationalised Bank or in some post office for a period of three years. The rest of the amount may be obtained in cash.”
7. Aggrieved by the award, the present three appeals by the Haryana Roadways.
8. The learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants has not assailed the findings of the Tribunal so far as issue No.l is concerned i.e. regarding negligent and rash driving by Ranbir Singh bus driver because there is no satisfactory evidence in support of the plea raised by the appellants, and the driver of the bus that it was stolen during the night of accident or that some third person was responsible for this accident. Rather it is admitted case of the appellants that Ranbir Singh was relevant driver on the offending bus. Also there is no corroborative evidence to the effect that no report was lodged regarding the theft of that Ranbir Singh ever gave in writing to his authorities that the bus had been stolen during the previous day. The plea raised by the appellants is too feeble to be proved and I have no concurrence with the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of respondent Ranbir Singh who at the time of accident was in the employment of respondents No.2 and 3.
9. A serious contest has been given regarding the mode of assessing compensation vis-a-vis the death of Darshan Singh and for the injuries suffered by Ram Chander. The Tribunal has concluded the monthly income of Darshan Singh deceased as Rs. 3500/-. The case of the claimants i.e. the legal representatives of Darshan Singh is that the deceased was a car mechanic. The monthly income of Darshan Singh assessed at Rs. 3500/- cannot be said to be on the higher side. The deceased had a large family consisting of himself, his wife, four minor daughters and two minor sons. Besides that he was helping his mother Smt. Swaran Kaur. The deceased must be contributing Rs. 3000/- to his family in order to run the household affairs after deducting his personal expenses. Even otherwise a car mechanic can easily earn Rs. 3500/- per mensem. However, I find a snag in the award of the Tribunal when it has applied a multiplier of 20 years and awarded a compensation of Rs. 8,40,000/-. The deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of his death. The suitable multiplier in this case should be 16 years instead of 20 years. Even the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the legal representatives of Darshan Singh fairly conceded at the bar that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal was on the higher side. Resultantly, I reduce the compensation and award a sum of Rs. 5,76,000/- to the legal representatives of deceased Darshan Singh i.e. the claimants of claim petition No. 183 of 1992. The claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the awarded amount of compensation from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment. Keeping in view the age of Swaran Kaur claimant No. 8 a sum of Rs. 26,000/- shall be given to her in lump sum and the rest of the amount i.e. Rs. 5,50,000/- along with interest on the awarded amount of Rs. 5,76,000/- shall be shared equally by claimants No.l to 7 and the amount falling to the shares of the minors shall remain deposited in a Nationalised Bank till they attain the age of majority. However, Lakhjinder Kaur claimant No.l, widow of Darshan Singh deceased would be entitled to draw interest on the amount falling to the shares of the minors in order to look after the minor children and to run the household expenses. Of course Lakhjinder Kaur would be entitled to withdraw the amount falling to her own share for her survive.
10. Dealing with the compensation awarded to Ram Chander regarding his injuries I again find that the Tribunal was too liberal when it awarded a sum of Rs. 2,65,000/- to him. It is the admitted case of the claimants that he was aged about 57 years. No doubt the compensation to an injured has to be assessed under different heads such as claim of medicines, pain, agony, compensation with regard to the prospective, medical expenses, age span and it has to be assessed keeping in view the nature of the injuries yet I cannot lose sight of the fact that this injured suffered multiple fractures in his left leg but he was not so incapacitated entitling him the compensation as awarded to him by the Tribunal. In my opinion, the just compensation should ought to have to be awarded to the claimant Ram Chander under all heads should not have exceeded more than Rs. 1.70 lakhs, if all the allowance are given and all the odds are taken in his favour as pointed out by the Tribunal in paras No. 28 to 32 of the Award. Thus I reduce the compensation of this claimant from Rs. 2,65,000/- to Rs.1.70 lakhs. Of course the claimant will be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment.
11. So far as the compensation awarded to Hari Kishan is concerned with regard to the damage caused to the car and for his personal injuries, there is no scope for interference and the compensation of Rs. 49,000/- inclusive of all heads has been rightly calculated.
12. The findings of the Tribunal under Issue No. 2 are modified to the above extent regarding the compensation for the death of Darshan Singh and for the injuries to Ram Chander. Any findings of the Tribunal inconsistent to my findings above will be deemed to be considered having been over-ruled by this judgment. The amount of compensation awarded by this Court above shall be jointly and severally payable by Ranbir Singh and his employer as the accident had taken place when Ranbir Singh was in the employment of Haryana Roadways.
13. In para No.45 of the award, the learned Tribunal has disbursed the amount of compensation in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors., (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 1 (S.C.). The idea is to safeguard the interest of the minors and also to ensure that the sufferer should live a respectable life after the death of the bread earner. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any interest while awarding the compensation which I am inclined to do and I have done so in the earlier portion of the judgment. Since some of the legal representatives of Darshan Singh are minors for that reason I have ordered that the amount falling to the shares of the minors along with interest should remain deposited in some nationalised Bank. The interest falling due on this deposited amount, of course shall be given to the mother who is also the natural guardian of the minors so that she may be able to look after and bring up her children in the present times when the prices of essential commodities are touching sky high.In my considered opinion the conditions laid down by the Tribunal in para No. 45 of the award would not meet the ends of justice and those should be substituted with my directions as given in the earlier portion of the judgment.
14. The net result is that F.A.O. No. 652 of 1995 titled as State of Haryana v. B.K. Gupta is hereby dismissed in toto as I have not reduced the compensation which was awarded by the Tribunal in claim petition No. 196 of 1993 titled as H.K. Gautam v. Ranbir Singh. The FAO Nos. 651 and 653 are partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified in terms of the directions and observations made above.
15. Before parting with this judgment it is also clarified that any amount paid or deposited by way of compensation to the claimants is adjustable against the awarded compensation and interest. No order as to costs in these appeals.