JUDGMENT
M.S. Liberhan, J.
1. This is an appeal arising out of an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, passed in Claim Petition Nos. 58 and 59 of 1981.
2. In Claim Petition No. 58 of 1981, Mehar Devi, widow, along with her minor daughters and sons, and Krishni Devi, claimed compensation on account of the death of Havildar Nathu Ram Sharma, the deceased husband of Mehar Devi and father of the minor claimants and son of Krishni Devi. In Claim Petition No. 59 of 1981, only Mehar Devi claimed compensation as the mother of Bhupinder Sharma deceased. Common questions of law and fact arose in both the petitions, hence the Tribunal recorded evidence in Claim Petition No. 58 and disposed of both the petitions vide the impugned order dated 1.10.1982. However, the State has preferred the present appeal only against the award arising out of Claim Petition No. 58 of 1981.
3. The claimants averred that the deceased Havildar Nathu Ram Sharma, aged 52V2 years and his son Bhupinder Sharma, aged 11 years, were standing at the “Request Bus Stop” on Chandigarh-Ambala Road, opposite the Air Port Chowk, on the berm of the road waiting for the bus. Bus bearing registration No. PUR 6857, driven by Narinder Singh respondent, came at a high speed from Chandigarh side. The driver suddenly swerved the bus to the extreme left and hit the deceased who were standing on the extreme left of the road on the berm. Nathu Ram Sharma deceased was dragged to a distance of about 25 ft. when the bus struck a telephone pole and fell down on its right side in a deep pit. Bhupinder Sharma also got injured and died later in the hospital. It was stated that Nathu Ram Sharma deceased was in the Army service and was drawing Rs. 893.52 as monthly salary at the time of his death. Thus, a claim of Rs. 2,50,000/- by way of compensation was made. In the connected Claim Petition No. 59 Mehar Devi claimed Rs. 50,000/- as damages for the loss of her son.
4. The accident, its place and date were admitted. It was stated by the respondents that deceased Nathu Ram Sharma and his son Bhupinder Sharma were standing at the “Request Bus Stop” on Chandigarh-Ambala Road opposite the Air Port Chowk, near the telephone pole exactly at the berm of the road. The bus was being driven at a low speed of 30 km. per hour and when it reached near the crossing, suddenly a truck appeared from the Air Port side and entered the crossing. The driver in order to avoid a direct collision between the truck and the bus, swerved his bus towards the extreme left. Resultantly, the bus climbed the road-berm and injured both the deceased. All other allegations of fact were controverted.
5. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the oral statements of A.S.I. Same Singh, PW 1, S.I. Jasbir Singh, PW 2, Havildar Clerk Buta Ram, PW 3, Dr. Ashok Gupta, PW 4, Havildar Sham Lai, PW 6, Bhagat Ram, PW 7 and Mehar Devi claimant herself as PW 5, and further taking into consideration the statement of Narinder Singh, driver, respondent No. 2, and going through the photographs P-l, P-3 to P-8 and P-10, came to the conclusion that:
the rashness and negligence on the part of respondent No. 2 is apparent from the fact that he has tailed to prove that he had turned the bus to left in order to allegedly avert the accident with the military truck, which according to him (driver) was coming from the Air Port side.
It was further found that the driver “had no reason to take the bus to the extreme left beyond the left berm of the road” and further after relying upon the evidence and taking into consideration the other circumstances, concluded that the bus driver was negligent and rash in driving the bus and caused the deaths of the deceased.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that rash and negligent driving is not proved. He has taken me through the statements of the witnesses as well as the photographs. I find no reason to differ with the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal with respect to the negligent driving of the driver. Apart from this, even according to the admission made by the driver himself to the effect that he had swerved the bus to the extreme left in order to avoid collision with the truck coming from the other side of chowk, he was not absolved of his responsibility of causing the deaths by his rash and negligent act. The circumstances that the bus crushed the persons standing on a bus stand on the extreme left of the road-berm, killing one of them instantly and severing his head from his body shows the speed at which he was crossing the busy chowk. No reason was pointed out to disbelieve the statements of the claimants’ witnesses stated above. Rather, their statements find corroboration from the statement of RW 1 Narinder Singh, driver of the ill-fated bus. Further, taking into consideration Exhs. P-l, P-3 to P-8 and P-10,1 find that there is no error either in the appreciation of evidence or inference drawn from the same. Bhagat Ram, PW 7, who corroborated the version of the claimant had no interest in the claimant and is an independent witness. Nothing substantial has been pointed out to disbelieve him in particular. I hereby confirm the findings of the Tribunal for the reasons recorded by him and hold that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Narinder Singh, respondent No. 2, resulting in the deaths of the deceased.
7. Additionally, since the finding with respect to rash and negligent driving has not been challenged in Claim Petition No. 59 of 1981, a contradictory finding cannot be given. The State is estopped from challenging the finding by not preferring an appeal in the connected claim petition arising out of the same accident.
8. Learned counsel for the State halfheartedly challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants solely on the ground that some deduction should have been made on account of payment of compensation in lump sum. This contention has no force. The compensation awarded is quite reasonable. It is not disputed that the salary of Nathu Ram Sharma deceased was Rs. 945/-per month. The Tribunal has observed that after giving consideration to the fact that the family of the deceased after his death would get Rs. 245/- per month, which the deceased was contributing towards gratuity and provident fund, the annual dependency of the claimants was assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. Taking into consideration and deducting the gratuity, provident fund contribution of Rs. 245/-, for determining the dependency of the claimants is contrary to the well settled law. A Full Bench of this court in Bhagat Singh Sohan Singh v. Om Sharma 1983 ACJ 203 (P&H), has observed that while assessing the annual dependency, pension, provident fund and gratuity cannot be taken into consideration. There is no reason for not taking the last pay drawn, that is, Rs. 945/- per mensem as the dependency of the claimants, which comes to Rs. 11,340/- per annum. No serious error has been pointed out in applying the multiplier of 16 accepted by precedents.
9. Since the claimants have neither filed any cross-objections nor any appeal for enhancement, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal with regard to quantum of compensation amounting to Rs. 1,60,000/- cannot be interfered with.
10. The Tribunal has awarded the said compensation with 6 per cent interest from the date of accident. The interest awarded is contrary to the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported in Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation 1985 ACJ 645 (SC) and Jagbir Singh v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways 1987 ACJ 15 (SC), wherein interest at the rate of 12 per cent has been awarded from the date of application to the date of payment. I, therefore, modify the award to the extent that the interest instead of 6 per cent would be 12 per cent from the date of application till the date of payment.
11. But for the modification in the award with respect to interest, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.