ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 24-12-1998, in Claim Case No. 13/94 by Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Korba.
2. Claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are the parents of deceased Sukhchand Munia. It is not disputed in this appeal that Sukhchand Munia died in a motor accident on 9-2-94 on the road from Korba to Balco, by Bus No. CPW 6722 owned by the appellant and driven by respondent No. 3-Raju Jha.
3. The claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short), for award of compensation of Rs. 9,62,000/-. It was averred in the application that their son deceased Sukhchand Munia was going on his ‘Luna’ from the left side of the road, at about 7.45 P.M. in the evening. The respondent No. 3 driver Raju Jha driving Bus No. CPW 6722 rashly and negligently dashed the same with the ‘Luna’ being driven by the deceased. Sukhchand Munia sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them on the day of accident itself.
4. The petition for claim as above was resisted by the appellant and respondent No. 3. It was stated that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased. It was further averred that the amount of compensation as claimed was highly inflated.
5. The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 2 driver Raju and the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were accordingly held entitled to get compensation of Rs. 70,000/-. The award as above was granted.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accident was the result of negligence of the ‘Luna’ driver and that the amount of award is excessive.
7. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents has urged that the evidence on record clearly indicates negligence and rashness on the part of the driver of the bus. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also filed cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 2, CPC for enhancement of the claim amount.
8. The first question that arises for consideration is as to whether the accident occurred on account of negligence of the bus driver-the respondent No. 3 ?
9. In the above context, Saiwal Gupta (A.W. 2) has categorically stated that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the bus driver. He has stated that the ‘Luna’ was proceeding from the left side of the road and the bus driver went on the wrong side of the road and dashed it against the ‘Luna’, resulting in grievous injuries to the driver of the ‘Luna’ as well as to the pillion rider. He has also stated that there was no light in the bus. It is therefore, clear that at the time of the accident which took place at about 7.45 P.M. in the night, the respondent No. 3 was driving the bus without light. If that be so, his negligence is ‘per-se’ established. Moreover, the statement of Saiwal Gupta (A. W. 2) also clearly shows that he was at fault in taking the bus on the wrong side of the road. It is also to be noticed in the above context that the respondent No. 3 Raju Jha did not enter the witness box and did not controvert the evidence as above. Therefore adverse inference against him has to be drawn. In this connection reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for appellant on M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Vaijanti and Ors. (1995 ACJ 560).
10. Therefore, the, finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver-the respondent No. 3 Raju Jha, is unimpeachable and is confirmed.
11. In view of above finding, it is clear that the appellant was liable to pay compensation. In view of cross-objection filed by respondents/Claimant Nos. 1 and 2 it has to be considered as to whether the amount of award is just or deserves to be interfered with on either side. It may be mentioned that under Rule 242 (3) of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, provision of Order 41 CPC have been made applicable mutatis-mutandis to the appeal preferred to the High Court under Section 173 of the ‘Act’. Hence, cross-objection can be competently filed.
12. From the pleadings and evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased was aged about 17 years. He was student of Class IX. The father of deceased Rajnikant (A.W. 1) has stated that he was helping him in his electrical work and was earning about Rs. 400-500 per month. In view of above, it is clear that the amount of award is on the lesser side. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the above context has cited a Division Bench decision of this Court in Noharlal Sahu and Ors. v. Sardar Surjeet Singh and Ors. (1998 (2) MPLJ Note No. 4) (Full report in 1999 (1) TAC 291 (MP), in which an award of Rs. 1,02,000/- was granted. In the said case the deceased was student of Class VIII and was aged 16 years. His notional income was taken to be at Rs. 15,000/- per year. Holding dependency to be Rs. 10,000/-per annum; multiplier of 10 was applied, and Rs. 2,000/- was added as funeral expenses.
13. The facts and circumstances of the present case are almost identical. Therefore, award of Rs. 1 lac on account of death deserves to be granted in the instant case, keeping in view the award, as above.
14. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The cross-objection of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is accepted. The award granted by the learned trial Court is modified and it is ordered that the appellant shall pay to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lac) with interest thereon @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment thereof. Costs of this appeal of claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be paid by the appellant. Counsel’s fee of Rs. 500/- if certified.