JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the award dated 8.9.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby the claim petition filed by claimants was dismissed for the reasons that the appellants have not been able to prove that the accident was caused by the offending bus as mentioned by the appellants.
2. One Labh Singh, a cart puller met with an accident on 19.11.1991 at about 6 p.m., while coming from Iron Market on the main road coming from the Tribune Chowk proceeding towards Sector 30, Chandigarh. It was alleged that bus No. H YE 1453 came at a very high speed and without blowing any horn, struck against the rehra from behind and the collision caused the death of Labh Singh. It is alleged that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Gulzar Singh, the respondent No. 2. In the written statement filed on behalf of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh the accident was denied. It was stated that the driver of Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh had not reported any such accident on 19.11.1991 near Tribune Chowk. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the accident in question was caused by respondent No. 2 by driving bus No. HYE 1453 rashly and negligently? OPP
(2) To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled and from whom? OPP
(3) Whether respondent No. 2 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR
(4) Relief.
3. The claimant-appellants to prove that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Gulzar Singh, produced Ram Sarup, P.W. 2 and Gurpreet Singh, P.W. 3. To controvert such oral evidence, the respondents produced driver of the bus as his own witness as R.W. 1. The respondent also produced Jaspal Singh, R.W. 2, Sub Inspector, Haryana Roadways. The learned Tribunal returned a finding that the claimants have failed to prove the initial burden that the accident was caused by the offending bus and thus dismissed the claimants’ application.
4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record of the case.
5. P.W. 2 Ram Sarup was a passenger in the bus who deposed that the bus in which he was travelling struck against rehra. However, he stated that the bus struck against the rehra coining from opposite side. Cross-examination to this witness was restricted to the route of the bus that the bus was coming on the Madhya Marg and not the Tribune Chowk. Claimants have also produced P.W. 3 Gurpreet Pal Singh, who deposed that the bus HYE 1456 crossed him at a fast speed and it struck against rehra behind it. Rehra turned upside down and the bus sped away. He chased the bus and noted its number and then came back to the spot. In cross-examination he deposed that he had seen the accident from a distance of about 15 ft. To rebut such evidence, the driver while appearing as R.W. 1 deposed that the bus was not near Tribune Chowk on that day and bus had not met with the accident on that day. Jaspal Singh, R.W. 2, brought the duty register wherein it is mentioned that Gulzar Singh was present on duty with busNo. HYE 1453 on route No. 25, i.e., from Chandigarh to Naraingarh. He was also deputed to take employees trip from High Court to Housing Board, Panchkula via K.C. Cinema, Madhya Marg, Sector 11, 15, Housing Board, Panchkula. Accordingto him, the staff duty starts at 5.10 p.m. from High Court and after dropping the passengers at the destination the bus had gone to Naraingarh on its regular route.
6. A perusal of the above evidence shows that bus No. HYE 1453 was at best on route Chandigarh to Naraingarh and vice versa. It could not be disputed that the route Naraingarh to Chandigarh has two approaches, i. e., one via Madhya Marg and another via Tribune Chowk. Therefore, the probability of the bus driver passing through Tribune Chowk cannot be ruled out.
7. The statement of Gurpreet Pal Singh, P.W. 3, is categoric to the effect that it was bus No. HYE 1456 which struck rehra from behind. The mere fact that he had given the last numerical digit as 6 instead of 3 will not make the witness unreliable as has been found by the learned Tribunal. No motive has been attributed to P.W. 3 Gurpreet Pal Singh as to why he should depose falsely. On the other hand, a perusal of the statement of P.W. 2 Ram Sarup shows that he was passenger in bus No. HYE 1453. Rehra was going from Sector 29, Iron Market to Sector 30, Chandigarh. The statement of the witness was recorded almost after two and a half years of the accident. Therefore, some discrepancies are bound to occur. The case of respondent is that of a bald denial. The evidence produced by claimants clearly proves that it was bus No. HYE 1453 which caused the accident. Even the F.I.R., Exh. PY, shows that it was the Haryana Roadways bus which caused the accident. If the driver of bus No. HYE 1453 had not caused the accident, it is for the respondents to explain which bus caused the accident. Even the first version soon after the accident proves that it was the bus of Haryana Roadways. Therefore, I am unable to uphold the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident has occurred with bus No. HYE 1453. Consequently, the finding on Issue No. 1 is set aside and is held that Labh Singh had died in accident with bus No. HYE 1453 which was being driven by Gulzar Singh in a rash and negligent manner.
8. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was daily wage earner, the income of Rs. 100 per day in the year 1991. seems to be on higher side. However, the daily wager would be earning around Rs. 70 per day even in the year 1991. Therefore, the monthly income can be safely assessed at Rs. 1,800 keeping in view the fact that he may not get wages for the entire month. The deceased had seven minor children apart from his wife. The deceased would not be spending 1/3rd amount on himself which are normally deducted out of the monthly income. Therefore it is deemed just and appropriate to deduct Rs. 400 per month as his monthly expenditure. Thus, I assess his dependency at Rs. 1,400 per month. The deceased was aged 37 years. Thus, 16 would be the suitable multiplier. In view of the above the compensation of Rs. 2,68,800 to be shared equally by all the appellants, is assessed on account of death of Labh Singh in the motor vehicular accident.
9. The share of minor appellants be deposited in fixed deposit and be payable to the minor claimants on attaining the age of 21 years. However, interest on the said amount shall be payable to the mother, claimant No. 1 for providing education, etc. The claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of filing the application till realisation on the amount of compensation.