JUDGMENT
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. This order will dispose of FAO No. 1105 of 1987 filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Cross-Objection No. 52-CII of 1992 filed in the said appeal by claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5 for enhancement of the compensation and Cross-Objection No. 85-CII of 1992 filed by Ram Asra, owner of offending Bus No. PAB 9033 praying that the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company and the claim petition filed by the claimants be dismissed.
2. The brief facts which led to the filing of this case are that Smt. Tarsem Kaur, widow of Hoshiar Singh who died in a road accident on 20.5.1986, her minor children and the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rup Nagar, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ awarded a sum of Rs. 93,840/- as compensation. As per award of the Tribunal, the entire liability was to be discharged by the Insurance Company, the present appellant.
3. The challenge to the impugned award is on the ground that the deceased was a Bus passenger in Bus No. PAB 9033 and as such the liability of the appellant is limited to Rs. 15.000/- as per terms of the Police and also under the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The second ground of challenge is that the owner of the offending vehicle Ram Asra had submitted a claim form Exhibit R-2 to the appellant in which it was written in his own hand-writing on 21.5.1986 that while the bus was standing at village Bhullery, one person unloading the cycle from the roof of the bus suddenly slipped and fell on the road as a result of which he got hurt and later on died in the Canal Hospital, Nangal. The next ground taken by the appellant is that Tilak Raj, Driver of the bus while appearing is RW-3, had stated that when the bus reached Dayalpur bus stop, all the passengers of bus alighted and he started the bus thereafter. He further stated that before the Conductor had whistled, on the alarms having been raised by the passengers, he came to know that a man had fallen down. The other plea is that as per claimants the deceased was in process of bringing down his cycle from the roof of the bus and was on the ladder when driver Tilak Raj drove the bus without blowing any horn and getting any signal from the bus Conductor. Even he did not care for the alarm raised by the passengers and drove the bus rashly and negligently, as a result of which Hoshiar Singh deceased fell down on the road.
4. Mr. Munishwar Puri, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has invited the attention of the Court to X-erox copy of the insurance policy to show that as per terms of the policy the liability of the company to be discharged by it was Rs. 15,000/-. In the Cross-Objection, the claimants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the deceased was 35 years old at the time of his death. As such, the Tribunal was not justified in applying a multiplier of 12 while assessing compensation.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the owner, Ram Asra, has pleaded that the entire liability is to be discharged by the appellant-Insurance Company as the bus was insured with the Insurance Company.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.
7. In the instant case, the death of the deceased is not in dispute. The only question that requires consideration is whether the deceased had died due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver Tilak Raj. In order to arrive at a conclusion, the statement of eye witness is a material piece of evidence. PW-4 Sharanjit Singh, who is an eye-witness to the accident had stated that on the day of accident he was travelling alongwith Hoshiar Singh, They alighted from the bus at the bus stop of Dayapur at about 8.15 p.m. It was drizzling. Hoshiar Singh brought down cycle from the bus and tried to cross the road ahead of the bus. Suddenly, the bus driver started the bus and paused the accident crushing Hoshiar Singh. Hoshiar Singh received injuries on his head and fell down. He was taken to the hospital in the same very bus which was being driven by Tilak Raj. A message was also sent to his family members and he came to know next day that Hoshiar Singh died in the hospital. The version of Sarjiwan Singh while appearing as RW-2 is to the effect that when the bus reached bus stop of Dayapur, 10 passengers alighted from the bus. According to this witness, Hoshiar Singh was under the influence of liquor. He brought down his cycle from the bus with the help of two passengers. This witness had further stated that when the deceased Hoshiar Singh had crossed the bus and tried to turn towards right hand side, he could not control his cycle and hit against the bumper of the bus as the bus had started.
8. On the other hand, Tilak Raj, driver of the Bus had given altogether a different version regarding the accident. While appearing as RW-3, this witness had stated that all the passengers had alighted and before the conductor had whistled the passengers started raising alarm informing that a man had fallen down. According to this witness, he had reversed the bus and took the man to the hospital, who died there.
9. The version of Sharanjit Singh (PW-4) so far as itreveals that the deceased was taken to the Hospital in the same bus by which he was crushed finds corroboration from the statement of Tilak Raj, Driver of the offending bus, who admitted that the deceased was taken to the hospital, where he died. I see no reason to disbelieve the version of Sharanjit Singh (PW-4) who had given the true-eye-witness account of the accident as he being an independent witness, neither interested in the claimant nor in the respondents. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the argument of Mr. Munishwar Puri, the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the deceased was a passenger in the offending bus at the time of the accident, so liability of Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 15,000/-.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has reached the conclusion that the deceased Hoshiar Singh died in a road accident. After bringing down the cycle from the bus in question, he tried to cross the road and suddenly the bus driver Tilak Raj started the bus which caused the accident and crushed him to death. As such the findings recorded by the Tribunal do not call for any interference and the same are affirmed.
Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with costs, which are, quantified at Rs. 1,000/-.
11. Taking up the case of claimants-respondents 1 to 5 as projected in Cross-Objections No. 52-CII of 1989, I am of the considered view that in this case a proper multiplier has not been applied by the Tribunal. The deceased was 35 years of age at the time of his death. At least a multiplier of 15 should have been applied. Calculating the annual dependency of the deceased at Rs. 7,820/- as assessed by the Tribunal and applying a multiplier of 15, the total amount of compensation to which the claimants would be entitled comes to Rs. 1,17,300/-. The Claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of the claim petition. The amount of compensation is to be proportionately shared by the claimants. Consequently, Cross-Objections No. 52-CII of 1989 are allowed to the extent indicated above.
Cross-Objections No. 85-CII of 1992 filed by Ram Asra owner of offending bus No. PAB 9033 are disposed of in view of the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company.