JUDGMENT
P.K. Bahri, J.
1. By this order I will dispose of the appeal as well as the cross-objections.
2. Vide order dated January 31, 1981, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded Rs. 23,000/- as compensation to respondent No. 1, the mother of the deceased, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment.
3. In the appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle of the Corporation by its driver Randhir Singh is not correct in accordance with the record.
4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on July 10, 1973, at about 9.30 P.M., Har Bhagwan Mehra, a young boy aged about 28 years, was in the process of crossing the Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg from the side of Delite Cinema and was crossing the road in front of the main gate of Irwin Hospital that this truck being driven by the driver of the M.C.D. is stated to have come at a high speed and struck against the deceased.
5. PW 7, Anand Prakash, is stated to be one of the eye witnesses of the occurrence. The case was registered on the testimony of another eye witness namely Sri Kishan but Sri Kishan was not examined as a witness by either of the parties. This Anand Prakash, PW 7, is employee of D.T.C. and was having his wife admitted in the Irwin Hospital at the relevant time and he is stated to have come out of the main gate of the Irwin Hospital when the accident took place. It is not shown that he was in any manner interested in the family of the deceased or was inimically inclined towards the driver of the vehicle of the appellant.
6. It is true that his statement has not been recorded by the police in the police case. He has given the reason for the same by deposing that after witnessing the accident, he went inside the hospital to look after his wife who was having Blood Cancer and on the following day, he met with the relations of the deceased at the hospital and he informed them of his having witnessed the said accident.
7. RW 1, Randhir Singh, on the other hand, has deposed that he was driving the said truck at a slow speed and one Ambassador car was overtaking his truck at a fast speed and suddenly the deceased came on the road and had struck against the Ambassador car. It is pertinent to mention that this stand has not been taken by the appellant and driver Randhir Singh when they filed the written statement to the claim petition. The factum of accident having taken place with the truck driven by this driver was not challenged in the written statement and only plea taken was that the deceased himself was negligent in coming to the road without caring about the traffic and accident had taken place on that score. So, the Tribunal was right in discarding the testimony of Randhir Singh, driver of the vehicle in this regard.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant has, however, vehemently argued that the truck was not being driven with any speed inasmuch as that after the accident took place, it had immediately stopped and the driver of the truck had taken the injured to the hospital and thus, there was no rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant.
9. Whether a particular vehicle has been driven negligently on a particular road would depend on the facts of each case. It is not necessary that the particular vehicle must be having very high speed and only then it could be said that the accident is due to any rash and negligent act. It has come out in the testimony of Anand Prakash that at the place where the accident took place, there is a blinking street light affixed which would indicate that the traffic has to take extra caution while approaching that particular blinking light. It is evident that the people have to come out of the Irwin Hospital for crossing the aforesaid road at all times because the hospital remains open through the day and night and that is why extra caution has to be taken by the drivers of the vehicles coming on that road where blinking lights are fixed.
10. Even if the truck was not being driven at a high speed, even then the driver of the truck was negligent in causing that accident as he could have anticipated while approaching the said road having blinking light that there is every possibility of persons crossing the road from that place. So, it cannot be said that this accident is not as a result of negligent driving by the driver of the appellant. I endorse the finding of the Tribunal in this regard and as far as the appeal of the appellant is concerned, that is liable to fail.
11. Now coming to the cross-objections, the claimant has prayed that the compensation which has been awarded at only Rs. 23,000/- is at low side and compensation be enhanced by Rs. 25,000/- more. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that no cross-appeal has been filed by the respondents/claimants seeking any enhancement of the compensation and it only when the appellant had thought fit to challenge the award of the Tribunal on merits and had filed the appeal and after the notice was served on the claimant that the claimant belatedly came up with the cross-objection for seeking enhancement of the compensation. He has argued that if no appeal had been filed by the appellant, the claimant would have been satisfied by the award given by the Tribunal and thus, no enhancement of the compensation should be entertained.
12. I do not agree that the compensation cannot be enhanced on the basis of the cross-objections filed by the claimant which are permitted by law, on mere hypothetical fact that if the appeal had not been filed the claimant would have remained satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on its own merits.
13. The Tribunal has given a finding that Rs. 250/- per month would have been spent by the deceased, who was a bachelor, for providing the maintenance to his mother who was aged about 55 years at the time of his accident. According to the Tribunal’s calculations, after the deceased had been married, if he had been alive, after about three years, then he could have provided only about Rs. 150/- to his mother.
14. It is clear from the evidence of the claimant that there is a history of longevity in the family with the father of the deceased being aged 75 years at the time of the giving of the statement by the claimant and other relations also having long lives. The Tribunal had taken into consideration the fact that the mother would have remained dependent on the deceased, if the deceased had remained alive, till she had attained the age of 67 years. Normally, the average age in India is being now taken as 70 years. Keeping in view the history of longevity in the family of the claimant, it is not surprising that the mother of the deceased is still alive and she is now aged about 75 years.
15. So, keeping in view all these facts, the compensation has to be enhanced. There was no reason to hold that after marriage, the deceased would not have well provided for the maintenance of his mother. The possibility of the deceased earning more and continue to provide at least Rs. 250/- per mensem to his mother even after he had been married, could not be overlooked.
16. So, keeping in view these facts, I hold that the compensation ought to have been provided to the mother applying the multiplier of 15 years. I this way, the amount would come to Rs. 45,000/-.
17. I allow the cross-objections to that extent and award Rs. 45,000/- in all as compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 1, Smt. Nand Rani. The interest at the rate of 12% per annum would be payable on the enhanced amount of the compensation from the date of the claim petition till payment. F.A.O. 211/81 is dismissed.
18. Parties are left to bear their own costs in this appeal and cross-objections.