ORDER
Arun Mishra, J.
1. The appeal has been preferred by the claimants being aggrieved dismissal of the claim petition as per award dated 7-8-02 passed by IXth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in MVC No. 96/2000.
2. The claimants widow, minor children and parents of the deceased Ram Sahay (aged about 38 years) have preferred claim petition on account of death of Ram Sahay in an accident dated 17-1-2000. The truck (MP 20-G/0191) was towing another truck (MP 20-A/992) due to rash and negligence driving of the truck No. MP 20-G/0192 the motorcycle dashed with the truck No. MP 20-A/992 Ram Sahay got entangled alongwith motorcycle with it Ram Sahay sustained injuries and motorcycle was also damaged. The report of the accident was lodged at Police Station Shahpura. The deceased was a teacher in the Govt. School and used to earn a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month. Compensation of Rs. 22,88,000/- was claimed. The truck No. MP 20-G/0192 was owned by respondent No. 1 -Jolly Road Lines, the respondent No. 2 Vimesh @ Vasant was driver of the truck (MP 20-G/0192) and truck was insured with respondent No. 3 the National Insurance Company Limited. The truck No. MP 20-A/992 was driven by Raghuvir Prasad Yadav, owned by Hardayal Singh and insured with the National Insurance Company Limited.
3. The drivers and owners of the trucks remained ex parte. The insurer in its reply denied the liability to make the compensation on the ground that on the date of accident driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle were necessary party. The deceased himself was negligent. Towing truck was not driven in terms and conditions of the policy and towing of another vehicle was not permissible under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
4. The Tribunal has held that the accident was outcome of negligence of the deceased himself. Consequently, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under no fault liability has been awarded by way of interim compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 9% till payment was made.
5. Shri L.N. Sakle, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal with respect to negligence of the deceased is contrary to the version of Ajit Singh (C.W. 2). The FIR was lodged by Ajit Singh (C.W. 2) he has also been examined as claimants witness, his statement has not been appreciated in proper perspective by the Tribunal. The deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 7,000/- per month as apparent from the statement of his widow and the documents Exh. P-1 and Exh. P-2 PPO and gratuity. Thus, just and proper compensation be awarded.
6. Shri Pramod Sahu, appearing on behalf of the insurer has submitted that motorcycle as well as both the trucks were going in the same direction. The truck No. MP 20-G/0192 had crossed the motorcycle thereafter motorcycle got entangled with the towed truck No. MP 20-A/992. Thus, deceased himself was negligent. There are contradictions in the FIR and the statement of Ajit Singh (C.W. 2) as found by the Tribunal. Thus, no case for interference in the appeal is made out.
7. First question for consideration is that whether the deceased himself was negligent. It was not disputed that truck No. MP 20-G/0192 was towing another truck No. MP 20-A/992. It is also not disputed that the motorcycle got entangled with the towed truck, i.e., MP 20-A/992. We find on record, FIR, lodged by Ajit Singh (C.W. 2) as well as his statement recorded before the Tribunal, the drivers of the trucks, owners and the insurer have not examined any witnesses. The FIR Exh. P-4, records that the deceased was going on his Yezdi motorcycle from Natwara to Shahpura and the truck No. MP 20-G/0192 was towing another truck No. MP 20-A/992. Ram Sahay was on his side of the road but truck No. MP 20-G/0192 came to the wrong side caused accident, the driver of the said truck drove it rashly and negligently in excessive speed and brought the truck towards Ram Sahay owing to that the truck No. MP 20-A/992 which was being towed, dashed the motorcycle deceased got entangled alongwith the motorcycle in truck being towed. Ram Sahay sustained injuries on various parts of the body and became unconscious. The report was lodged with promptitude within 30 minutes of the accident and we do not find any ground so as to the disbelieve the aforesaid facts mentioned in the FIR. We have considered the statement of Ajit Singh (C.W. 2), he has owned lodging the FIR in the concerned Police Station. He stated that the deceased was on his side of his road, deceased thought that one truck has crossed but another truck which was being towed dashed the deceased. Deceased had given the side to the first truck and was dashed by the truck being towed as he came in front of the truck. Though, he has made statement at some variance from FIR but we find that the version of FIR to be more probable and plausible as to method and manner of the accident as the truck towing the truck No. MP 20-A/992 was taken angularly to one side of the road that was the reason the truck which was being towed, dashed the motorcycle. We find negligence of truck driver on the strength of the facts mentioned in the FIR. Apart from non-observance the rules as to towing contained in Rule 20 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989. Rule 20 (1) to (4) quoted below:
(1) No vehicle other than a mechanically disabled motor vehicle or incompletely assembled motor vehicle, a registered trailer or a side car, shall be drawn or towed by any motor vehicle, except for purposes of delivery and to the nearest filling station or garage.
(2) No motor vehicle shall be drawn or towed by any other motor vehicle unless there is in the driver’s seat of the motor vehicle being drawn or towed a person holding a licence authorizing him to drive the vehicle or unless the steering wheels of the motor vehicle being towed, are firmly and securely supported clear of the road surface by some crane or other device on the vehicle which is drawing to towing it.
(3) When a motor vehicle is being towed by another motor vehicle the clear distance between rear of the front vehicle and the front of the rear vehicle shall at no time exceed five meters. The tow ropes, or chains shall be of a type-easily distinguishable by other road users and there shall be clearly displayed on the rear of the vehicle being towed in black letters not less than 75 mm high and on a white background the words “ON TOW”.
(4) No motor vehicle when towing another vehicles other than a trailer or signs car shall be driven at a speed exceeding 24 KM per hour.
In our considered opinion, in case there was distance not exceeding 5 meters between the two vehicles as provided in aforesaid Rule 20 (2) [sic: Rule 20 (3)] it would not have been possible for the deceased after giving side to the first truck to come in front of the later truck which was being towed considering the period which must have been consumed. Thus, version of the FIR that first truck was plied in excessive speed in rash and negligent manner and was taken angularly towards the side of the deceased, though deceased had given the side as stated by Ajit Singh (C.W. 2) but due to angular direction the motorcycle of deceased was dashed by the first truck. We find that truck was plied in excessive speed, more than 24 km per hour. As mentioned in the FIR, it was driven in excessive speed. Drivers of the trucks did not enter the witness box when Ajit Singh (C.W. 2) has stated that truck was in normal speed, he has not stated that truck was in slow speed while towing truck was required to be 24 km or below speed whereas normal speed is usually 40-45 km per hour. Thus, there was violation of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 20. Besides there is no evidence placed on record on behalf of the drivers and owners of the both trucks, to show that distance between the two vehicles was not exceeding five meters. No written sign board mentioning the words “ON TOW” on the rear vehicle was placed as mandated by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 20. Thus, basic precaution while towing the truck were also not followed. The burden of proving observance of the precautions as provided in Rule 20 was on the driver, owner and insurer of the trucks. But they have not adduced any evidence in that regard. The nature of accident speaks hence we are compelled to infer that facts mentioned in the FIR -to be correct, we act upon it in holding that deceased was not negligent and the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of truck No. MP 20-G/0192 and while towing the basic precautions were not observed.
8. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation to be awarded. It is apparent from the Exh. P-1 and Exh. P-2, i.e., PPO gratuity payment order that what was the basic salary of the deceased. He used to get in addition dearness allowance also. For the purpose of computation of gratuity only basic salary was taken into consideration. Dearness allowance was not included in PPO/gratuity was not disputed at bar. Thus, we find ring of truth in the statement of Meera Tiwari (C.W. 1) salary on inclusion of dearness allowance was Rs. 6,500/-. Deceased was young aged about 38 years he had bright future prospects ahead he would have obtained the promotion before his retirement. Thus, we deem it appropriate to take his salary considering the future prospects at Rs. 7,000/- per month annual income comes to Rs. 84,000/-. After making l/3rd conventional deduction towards self-expenditure, which amount deceased would have spent on himself had he been alive, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 56,000/- the multiplier of 16 is applicable as per Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. We apply the multiplier of 16. Consequently, the compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 56,000/- x 16 = Rs. 8,96,000/-. Apart from that, we award a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under customary heads such as loss of estate, loss of expectancy of life and funeral expenses inclusive of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to the widow of deceased on account of loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 9,36,000/- (Rupees Nine lacs thirty six thousand only). The compensation to carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.
9. The claimants are widow, two minor children and parents. The age of parents at the time of filing the claim petition was 72 and 65 years. We deem it appropriate to award 15% of the compensation amount to the parents and remaining 85% of the compensation in equal proportion to the widow and minor children. The Tribunal to follow the guidelines in the matter of disbursement of amounts laid down in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Limited v. Susamma Thomas and Ors. . The respondents are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation.
Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs.