JUDGMENT
N.N. Mithal, J.
1. This is an appeal by the claimant in a motor accident claim petition. Ashok Kumar, deceased, young son of the appellant, was fatally injured while boarding bus no. UPC 5576 belonging to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 22.2.1982 at about 7.30 a.m. He was aged about 19 years and was a student of B.Sc. Part I.
2. According to the case of the claimant, the bus in question was a city bus passing through Nadeshwar crossing while going to Kutchehri. The deceased wanted to board the bus and after giving a signal to the bus to stop, when the bus had slowed down, he caught hold of the handle and boarded the footboard but the driver suddenly speeded the bus as a result of which he fell down and was crushed under the wheels. There was initially a controversy as to whether the bus in question was really involved in the accident or not. However, the Claims Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that the bus was involved in the accident and blood stains were found on the type of the bus when the police was able to trace out the bus. This fact is also admitted by the driver and conductor of the bus in their testimony. In view of this it is not necessary to go over the evidence on this point again. The learned Counsel has also not been able to show anything which may persuade me to take a different view of the matter.
3. The only question which was urged before me was that the finding of the Tribunal that there was no negligence on the part of the driver was erroneous. According to the Corporation the bus was still moving when the deceased tried to board it and as such it was not liable for any damages if the passenger fell down and was crushed. On behalf of the appellant, however, it was urged that the Tribunal was not considered the evidence in a proper perspective. According to him, testimony of PWs 1, 2 and 3 has remained unshaken as to the manner in which the accident has taken place and it goes to establish that the bus had come to a stop before the deceased tried to board the same. It is of course true that PW 1 had initially stated that the bus had slowed down when the deceased caught hold of the handle of the bus and boarded on the footboard of the bus. However, in the cross-examination he stated that the bus had come to a dead stop before the deceased actually boarded it. He also admitted that before the deceased entered the bus one other passenger, a girl, also boarded the bus and the deceased followed her into that bus. Statements of PWs 2 and 3 are very specific on this point and all these witnesses have stated that the bus was stationary when the girl and thereafter the deceased entered the same. They have also clearly stated that the boy fell down only on account of the fact that the bus was started suddently.
4. This evidence clearly establishes the case of the claimant that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in starting the bus suddenly when the passenger was in process of boarding the same. On the other hand the Corporation had examined the driver and bus conductor who have tried to feign ignorance about the accident and throughout maintained that they never came to know that anybody had been crushed under the bus. It is admitted that DW1 Jawahar was driving the offending bus on the fateful day. DW3 Chandra Shekhar was conductor of the bus. However, they maintained that till the time the bus came back to the workshop they did not know that anybody had been crushed by that bus. Their evidence is one of total ignorance about the accident. We, are, therefore, left only with the testimony of PWs to come to the conclusion as to whether the accident had taken place or not. In view of the fact that blood stains were found on the type of the bus and in view of the admitted position that soon after the accident there was student unrest as the bus driver had run away after the accident clearly goes to show that the bus in question was involved in the accident. Even the driver had to admit that this bus was later on traced by the police as the offending bus and thereafter on examination of the same it was found that its tyre had blood stains on it. In this manner it stands fully established that the accident had taken place on account of negligence of the driver in starting the bus suddenly while the deceased was trying to board the bus after it had stopped on being signalled to stop it by the deceased near the bus-stop.
5. The question, however, arises as to what amount of compensation should the claimant be awarded? Statement of the claimant is absolutely silent on this question. No evidence has been led to show as to what would have been the contribution made by the deceased towards the family. However, there are certain admitted facts which may be looked into. The deceased was a student of B.Sc. Part I and had earlier appeared in pre-medical test and was intending to do so that year also. He was 19 years of age. Father of the deceased is employed by the Corporation and was drawing about Rs. 513/- as salary besides Rs. 200/ – as pension as freedom fighter, he also has 20 big has of land. All these go to show that the father is fairly well placed financially. It also established that he was in a position to establish his son fairly well. Chances are that in due course of time the son would have been established either in the business or in some service. However, all this is in the realm of speculation and nothing concrete has come in the evidence. In these circumstances the claimant would be entitled only to conventional damages. In the case of death of a young man usually compensation is awarded ranging between Rs. 5, 000/- to Rs. 10, 000/- and this is the consistent view of various High Courts in the country. In view of the tragic circumstances in which a young life has been cut short on account of negligence of the driver it would be just and proper if an amount of Rs. 10, 000/- is awarded by way of compensation.
6. In the result the appeal succeeds and is. Here by allowed and the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 10, 000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only by way of compensation on account of the death of her son. There will, however, be no order as to costs.