JUDGMENT
S.B. Wad, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 23-9-1981, claiming that the order is wrong in as much as the DTC vehicle has been held to be responsible for causing the death of Shri K.L. Sethi. The submission of the appellants is that on proper appreciation of the evidence on record it can be seen that it is only the deceased who got involved in the accident by his own negligence. Alternatively it is submitted this is a case of contributory negligence.
2. Deceased K.L. Sethi was going on his scooter No. DHU 3146 from his office towards his residence and when he was so going near Kothi No. 1, King George Avenue, he wanted to cross the road. When he had crossed 3/4th of the road after giving proper signal, bus No. DHP 2160 came from the other side in a high speed and hit the scooter. K.L. Sethi died in the accident. I have been taken through the evidence by the counsel for the appellant. I agree with the Tribunal that even if the evidence of PW/5, the alleged eye witness, is not considered, the evidence of PW/7 is quite reliable and he cannot be merely described as a chance witness if the site plan, the photographs and the inspection report are considered. The injuries received by the deceased, as described, are supported by the medical evidence. It was the duty of the bus in question to look ahead, particularly at the crossings and to stop the bus well in time so as to avoid the accident. The offending bus has failed to do so. I do not find it a case of contributory negligence by the deceased at all. The accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the D.T.C. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly held the D.T.C. responsible to pay the compensation. The appeal, F.A.O. 65/82, is dismissed.
3. However, there is a cross-appeal, No. FAO 103/82, filed by the claimants/the heirs of the deceased for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal on the basis of the income of deceased K.L. Sethi and considering his age, came to the conclusion that compensation of Rs. 1,00,800/- would be just compensation. The Tribunal, however, erred in deducting a sum of Rs. 27,600/- which were paid as the family pension. The family pension amounts cannot be deducted. The Tribunal is further wrong in reducing a sum of Rs. 2,470/- against gratuity and insurance which the widow had received. The Tribunal had also reduced the amount further by 15% on account of lump sum payment. This also is impermissible as the law is laid down. I, therefore, hold that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,800/-. The amount of Rs. 60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal has been deposited under the orders of this Court in fixed deposit in the State Bank. The claimants had also been beneficiaries of the interest on the said fixed deposit. The D.T.C. is entitled to the credit for the deposit of the said amount as well as the interest on it.
4. The claimants would, however, be entitled to simple interest @ 9% per annum on Rs. 1,00,800/- from the date of application till the date on which Rs. 60,000/- were deposited in the Bank. They would further be entitled to the difference in the enhancement of compensation plus the proportionate interest on it, from the date of deposit of Rs. 60,000/-.
FAO 103/82 is allowed.