JUDGMENT
Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.
1. The appellantCorporation has preferred this appeal challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, thereby the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have been awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,02,000 on the death of Atarsingh Bansal who was the husband of respondent No. 1 and the father of respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
2. Respondent/applicant Nos. 1 to 6 with mother of the deceased, named, Chanto Bai as applicant No. 7 had filed the application under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for compensation, as Atarsingh had died in the accident caused by bus bearing registration No. CPH 8228 owned by the appellantCorporation and driven by respondent Brijmohan. During the pendency of the claim petition, Chanto Bai, the mother of the deceased, also died.
3. It was stated in the application that when deceased Atarsingh with his colleague Harishankar Gautam was coming to Gwalior from Bhind on 12.6.1979, on the motor cycle of Harishankar, who was driving his motor cycle on the left side of the road, the offending vehicle, going from Gwalior to Bhind, hit the motor cycle, resulting in the instantaneous death of Atarsingh and Harishankar Gautam.
4. The driver drove the bus to Bhind without stopping it at the spot even for a minute. Both the deceased persons were sub-engineers in the Irrigation Department of the State. Soon after the accident, a truck of the Irrigation Department, which was carrying some equipment happen to reach the spot. The truck was stopped by driver Chandrakishore Dixit. The other occupant of the truck was one Gulab Rai Maratha. On identifying the dead bodies, a report was lodged by Gulab Rai Maratha with police kotwali (Dehat), Bhind.
5. The offending bus was thereafter stated to be washed at the depot as it had the blood stains. Respondent No. 2 was stated to have come to the spot by another bus from Bhind Depot and had disturbed the spot.
6. After the police report, dead bodies were removed from the spot and the postmortem was conducted. The driver of the bus was challaned in the criminal court. The claim petition was preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 who are the legal representatives of deceased Atarsingh. Another petition was preferred by the relations of other deceased Harishankar Gautam. Both the claim petitions were decided under the impugned award. The present appeal is only against respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Respondent No. 7 is the non-applicant driver of appellant’s offending bus.
7. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have not preferred any appeal or the cross-objections.
8. The learned Tribunal found that the offending bus was driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No. 2, which resulted in the accidental death of Atarsingh. The learned Tribunal also held that the defence taken by the appellant that the motor cycle had dashed against the bus as it went out of control due to the puncture of rear wheel, was not possible in the facts and circumstances and in the light of the evidence which had come on record. The learned Tribunal awarded the compensation to respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in the sum of Rs. 1,02,000 against the appellant and the driver respondent No. 7, jointly and severally.
9. The Tribunal on the assessment of the evidence found that deceased Atarsingh was aged 40 years and was serving as sub-engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State. His pay was found to be Rs. 788 per month and after deducting 50 per cent (sic say 33 per cent) of the income which the deceased would be spending on himself found the dependency of the respondents at Rs. 6,000 per annum. The learned Tribunal without considering the chances of further increase in pay and allowances and the possibility of promotion of the deceased, further applied the multiplier of 15 and thus calculated the amount of compensation at Rs. 90,000. The learned Tribunal added Rs. 12,000 towards the other heads including the loss of consortium and thus calculated the total amount at Rs. 1,02,000. The Tribunal also awarded the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,02,000. But a further condition was imposed by the Tribunal that if the appellant deposits the total amount of compensation with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 6.11.1979, i.e., the date of application to 5.12.1984, i.e., the date two months after the award, with the Tribunal, the appellant would not be liable to pay the additional interest of 6 per cent per annum.
10. The appellant has challenged the award mainly on the ground that the respondents failed to prove that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant’s driver, respondent No. 7. It is also urged that the motor cycle driven by deceased Harishankar had gone out of control and it had itself dashed against the bus.
11. It is, therefore, very strenuously contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that no amount of compensation could be awarded to the respondents as the accident was due to the act of deceased himself. It is further argued that the bus of theCorporation has not been proved to be driven rashly and negligently.
12. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned award be set aside. In the alternative it is submitted that the deceased was* also responsible for the said accident and the amount of compensation, therefore, deserves to be reduced by 50 per cent.
13. The learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, submitted that the learned Tribunal in passing the impugned award, has adopted a reasonable approach on the assessment of evidence led by both the parties and it does not call for any interference.
14. We have considered the rival contentions and are of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
15. From the evidence of Hari Mohan Purohit, PW 2, Surendra Sharma, PW 3, and Gulab Rai, PW 4, it is amply proved that at the time of accident, the offending bus was being driven rashly and negligently. It has further appeared in the evidence of these witnesses that the driver respondent No. 7 had not stopped the bus even after the accident. He had thereafter slowed down the speed only for some moments, but had again speeded the bus. From the evidence of Hari Mohan Purohit, PW 2 and Surendra Sharma, PW 3, it further appeared that after the accident, the bus was not taken to the bus stand but it was driven to the depot where the blood stains were washed and another bus with respondent No. 7 was sent for destroying the position of the spot. The conduct of respondent No. 7, the driver of the appellant’s bus, also proves that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently.
16. Although, the appellant also led evidence of conductor and its other employees as DWs 1 to 3 to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle/bus was not driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and that the accident was due to the uncontrolled driving of the motor cycle as its rear wheel had got punctured, but the circumstances and the conduct of bus driver destroyed the theory.
17. The learned Tribunal has considered the evidence and found that the appellants were trying to take advantage of the fact that the rear wheel of the motor cycle contained no air, but that could be the result of the wheel being crushed under the bus. The claimants through the passengers of the bus, Hari Mohan, PW 2 and Surendra Sharma, PW 3, have successfully proved that the bus was driven rashly and negligently. The appellant failed to discharge its burden that the accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The accident itself speaks of rashness and negligence. Larger the vehicle more is the responsibility of its driver to be cautious and to drive the vehicle at a reasonable speed. In our view, the learned Tribunal has properly assessed the evidence for arriving at the findings of fact against the appellants.
18. The amount of compensation is also not excessive. It is rather on the lower side but as there is no cross-appeal, no further relief to the respondents can be granted.
19. On the foregoing discussion, we have found no merit in this appeal. The appeal is, as such, dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants shall bear their own costs as also the costs of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in this appeal.