JUDGMENT
J.V. Gupta, J.
1. This appeal filed on behalf of the claimants is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, dated June 4, 1983, whereby a sum of Rs. 96,000/- was awarded as compensation.
2. The facts regarding the accident are no more in dispute. The only controversy relates to the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. It was on August 20, 1982, that in the accident between the bus, No. PUC-7305 and the jeep, No. DED-1901 Gurinder Singh Dhindsa, aged 40 years, died. The deceased was travelling in the jeep driven by Surjit Singh whereas the bus owned by the Punjab Roadways, Amritsar, was being driven by Jarnail Singh. It was a head on collision between the said vehicles on account of which Gurinder Singh Dhindsa fell down from the jeep on the road and died. According to the claimants, the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the bus. According to the defendants on August 20,1982, there was heavy rain. The road was slippery. There was ten persons in the jeep ; about four persons on the front seats. It was over-loaded. Its driver tried to over-take a bicyclist ahead. The bus came from Batata side. Its driver gave horn and applied brakes. The driver of the jeep could not control it with the result it struck against the bus. Gurinder Singh fell down on the road and died. Thus, it was averred that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1) Whether Gurinder Singh was killed due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by Jarnail Singh ?
(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, are the claimants entitled to compensation ?
(3) Relief.
Under issue No. 1, the Tribunal found that both the sides were agreed that the death of Gurinder Singh had taken place while he was travelling in jeep No. DED-1901 and the same had struck against the bus. However, it was further found that after going through the evidence, it was of the view that the death of Gurinder Singh had taken place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the bus by Jarnail Singh, RW 1 and the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by Surjit Singh, P W 3. Thus, it apportioned the liability 50: 50. Under issue No. 2, the dependency of the deceased was determined at Rs. 1,000/- per month, after holding his income to be Rs. 1,100/- per month. After applying a multiplier of 16, the total amount determined as compensation was Rs. 1,92,000/-, Since the liability was apportioned half and half; so the said amount was also divided half and half. Ultimately, a sum of Rs. 96,000/- was allowed to the claimants as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. The claimants are the widow of the deceased and her two minor children.
4. The learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that it has been wrongly held by the Tribunal that the liability of the claimants and the respondents was half and half in causing the accident. According to the learned Counsel, there was no evidence to this effect In any case, even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the driver of the jeep was also equally negligent, even then, the amount of compensation could not be reduced by the Tribunal because Gurindir Singh Dhindsa was a passenger in the jeep and, therefore, he was entitled to the lull amount of compensation. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Jagdeep Singh v. Anokh Singh 1987 Accidents Claims Journal 373. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the amount of compensation has been wrongly determined. The deceased was getting only Rs. 750/-per month and there was no cogent evidence to hold that he was getting Rs. 1,100/-per month. In any case, argued the learned Counsel, it could not be held that he was paying Rs. 1,000/- to his family for maintenance. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, at the most, Rs. 700/- could be said to be his dependency per month and, therefore, by applying a multiplier of 16, the amount came to Rs. 1,34,400/-. According to the learned Counsel because of the contributory negligence of Surjit Singh, PW 3, the jeep driver, the claimants were entitled to only half of the said amount.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.
6. Surjit Singh, the jeep driver, appeared as PW 3. He stated that two persons, Manmohan Singh and B.N. Mehra were sitting by his side on the front seats in the jeep. Gurinder Singh Dhindsa was sitting in the rear of the jeep along with S.N. Vasudeva and R.S. Miglani. He also stated that two persons could safely sit by the side of the driver in the jeep. He could not say whether it had rained the previous night to the day of the occurrence or not. Jarnail Singh, the driver of the bus appeared as RW 1. He stated that the driver of the jeep tried to overtake a bicyclist. The speed of the jeep at that time would be 55 to 60 kms. per hour. Since it had rained the previous day and even at the time of the accident it was raining, he lowered the speed of the bus on seeing the jeep. He had given signal through lights. Since the driver of the jeep failed in his attempt to overtake the bicyclist and to apply the brakes, the jeep struck against the bus. On this evidence, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence if there was any damage to the bus whereas the damaged condition of the jeep was available from the photograph, Exhibit P. 3. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was of the view that the death of Gurinder Singh Dhindsa had taken place as a result of rash and negligent driving by Surjit Singh, PW 3 and Jarnail Singh, RW 1, and apportioned the liability half and half.
7. Even if we assume for the sake of arguments that both the drivers were equally liable for causing the accident in which Gurinder Singh Dhindsa died, even then, the claimants are entitled to the full amount of compensation as the deceased could not be held to be at fault in any manner. For the fault of the driver of the jeep, the compensation could not be reduced. In Jagdeep Singh’s case (supra), there was a collision between a bus and a motor-cycle due to the negligence of the bus driver and the motor-cyclist resulting into injuries to its riders. Therein, the pillion rider Amarjit Singh also filed the claim petition. So, the question was whether the contributory negligence of the motor-cyclist could be attributed to the pillion-rider also. It was held that the pillion rider could not be thus held liable and that no reduction could be made from the amount of compensation to which he was entitled otherwise. That being so, the Tribunal has erred in dividing the amount of compensation to 50 per cent on account of the fault of the jeep driver in this case.
8. As regards the amount of compensation, I find that there was no cogent evidence to hold that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,100/- per month or that he was contributing Rs. 1,000/- per month towards his family. Maninder Kaur who appeared as PW 1, stated that her husband used to spare Rs. 900/- for her and the children. Except this statement, there is no other evidence in this behalf. Under the circumstances, it has been wrongly held that the dependency of the deceased was Rs. 1,000/-per month. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, it could be safely concluded that the deceased was contributing Rs. 700/-per month towards his family. That being so, his annual dependency comes to Rs. 8,400/-. By applying a multiplier of 16 (sixteen), the total amount comes to Rs. 1,34,400/-, to which the claimants will be entitled. They will also be entitled to interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum instead of 6 per cent per annum as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of the application till realisation.
9. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. All the respondents will be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the said amount.