JUDGMENT
P.N.S. Chouhan, J.
1. On 27.6.1977, appellant’s bus No. CPM 8083 while negotiating the ‘Nohta’ bridge over Byarma river on Sagar-Jabalpur route was washed away by flood-water killing all its passengers including 40 years old Government school lecturer, Bhagirath Chaturvedi. His legal heirs claimed Rs. 7,76,510/- in claim case No. 3 of 1977 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act but the M.A.C.T., vide award dated 29.10.1982, allowed Rs. 42,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of award till realisation which is under challenge in this appeal. A cross-objection for enhancing the amount of award has also been filed.
2. Appellant’s learned Counsel argued that the passengers persuaded the driver to cross the bridge and when the bus was in the mid-stream, strong current of water came and swept away the bus and, therefore, the finding that the accident resulted from rash and negligent driving is not sustainable. The evidence and circumstances mock at this argument. Appellant’s own solitary witness, Virendra Kumar Jain, the then Divisional Manager, Jabalpur, within whose jurisdiction this ghastly accident took place has admitted in para 7 that not a single occupant including the crew of this ill-fated bus survived. Thus, his statement in para 3 that he subsequently came to know that when the bus entered the bridge, it was not submerged and the accident took place due to sudden rising of water-level is hearsay because no one from whom this vital information was gathered has been examined by the appellant. This hearsay evidence ought not to have been recorded being inadmissible. As against it, there is the evidence of Saiyad Badrudjama, AW 4, who is a telephone operator and was posted at the pertinent time at Damoh. He has stated to have seen the incident from the bank of the river where he had gone for fishing along with his friends. From his version, it is clear that the bridge was submerged and trucks were waiting on both ends for water-level to recede when the ill-fated bus arrived from the side of Damoh and stopped near the water. The driver was warned that the water-level was high and he should not attempt to cross it but he brushed aside the caution saying that the water-level was not that high and stalled ahead. When the bus reached the middle of the bridge, its headlights tilted upwards and then it disappeared in the churning water of flood sending a shock wave amongst the onlookers. The learned Tribunal rightly held this eye-witness account reliable which completely negatives the plea of vis major, i.e., abrupt rise of water-level resulting in washing away of the bus. Thus, the learned Tribunal was justified in invoking the principle of res ipsa loquitur to hold driver’s rashness as the cause of this accident.
3. On the quantum of damages the appellant’s contention that it is on the high side is unacceptable because in fact the Tribunal was not very just in deducting Rs. 1,000/- on account of money received by respondent No. 1 from teachers’ insurance and Rs. 3,200/- received on account of family pension. The Tribunal itself cited Kainini Devi v. Awdlirsli Kumar 1979 (II) MPWN 225), in support of proposition that insurance, family pension, gratuity and G.P.F. should not be deducted while ascertaining the compensation payable in such case, but preferred to follow some other cases in this behalf. The learned Tribunal, after taking into account all the aspects of the case and considering the case-law, concluded that although the deceased had 18 years to retire, a reduced multiplier of 12 will be applicable. Holding the dependency to be Rs. 300/- per month and allowing Rs. 3,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow, making a deduction of Rs. 1,000/- on account of accelerated payment of claim under teachers’ insurance scheme and deducting a sum of Rs. 3,200/- for payment of family pension the sum of Rs. 42,000/- has been arrived at. Without going into the minute details of all such aspects leaving these deductions intact, we consider that the multiplier adopted should be increased from 12 to 18 as taking the dependency to be coterminus with superannuation of the deceased to adequately meet the ends of justice. The accident took place in 1977. Taking into account the devaluation of rupee since then, the rate of interest has to be realistic to partly offset the effect of devaluation and, therefore, the same is enhanced from 6 to 18 per cent per annum and is allowed from the date of application before the Tribunal.
4. Before parting with this appeal, we consider it oligatory to express our profound shock at the callous attitude of the appellant. Corporation towards the dependants of the deceased. Here is a case where one of its passenger buses was swept away in the turbulent flood-water of a river due to apparent negligence of its crew leaving not a single survivor. Body of the deceased Bhagirath Chaturvedi was recovered from the river with his bus ticket still in his trouser pocket and yet in its written reply the, Corporation denied almost everything touching its liability including the fact that Chaturvedi was a bona fide passenger of this ill-fated bus. We find it difficult to reconcile this callous attitude with the role of this Corporation, an instrumentality of our welfare State and earnestly hope that something should be done at the policy making level to ensure that in cases of such claims where the liability is clear instead of resisting the claim on entirely frivolous pleas efforts should be made for expeditious negotiated settlements.
5. In result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Partly allowing the cross-objections, we enhance the amount of claim to Rs. 63,600/- and order that interest thereon will be payable at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Counsels’ fee Rs. 2,000/-.