Judgment:
S.K. Dubey, J.
1. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act') the appellants challenge the award dated 11.7.1994, passed in Claim Case No. 135 of 1991 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sidhi.
2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 after notice of appeal have filed cross-objection under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure for enhancement of compensation.
3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are these: On 6.3.1991, at about 10.00 p.m. deceased Rajkaran, aged 25 years, with his wife, respondent No. 1 and son Lavlesh, aged 6 years was returning to his residence in village after attending a marriage feast. A stage carriage bus No. MKM 7836 driven by respondent No. 3 in the course of employment of appellants which was coming from Shakti Nagar for going to Jabalpur dashed the deceased Rajkaran and Lavlesh as a result of which both died at the spot. A report was lodged at Police Station, Bargawan. The bus was seized by the police and after investigation a challan under Sections 279, 337, 304A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, was filed against the respondent No. 3 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deosar.
4. The respondent No. 1, the widow aged 22 years and father of deceased Rajkaran filed an application under Section 166 of the Act to claim compensation of Rs. 17,88,000/- for the two deaths caused in the motor accident arising out of the use of stage carriage bus. The appellants raised a preliminary objection that the application for compensation of the two deaths is not maintainable. On merits it was contended that the accident was not caused by stage carriage bus. There was no rash and negligent act on the part of the respondent No. 3.
5. The Tribunal on the evidence of Jagrania, AW 1, the widow and that of Purushottam Shrivastava, NAW 1, the driver and material on record held that the accident occurred due to sole rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. Thereafter, assessed the compensation. On assessment of the earning of the deceased at Rs. 500/- per month, giving a deduction therein of Rs. 250/- per month for the personal living expenses of the deceased, estimated the dependency at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month, yearly Rs. 3,000/-, applying the multiplier of 33, determined the compensation of Rs. 99,000/- for the death of Rajkaran and for the death of Lavlesh the compensation was determined at Rs. 34,000/-. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 1,33,000/- was awarded along with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for the death of Rajkaran and Lavlesh.
6. Mr. Dhande, learned Counsel for the appellants, contended that the joint application for compensation for two deaths arising out of the same accident was not maintainable. The compensation is to be determined separately if there are more than one cases arising out of the same accident. Common evidence can only be recorded on the issue of rash and negligent driving, a decision of learned single Judge of this Court in Basantlal v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corporation 1977 ACJ 219 (MP), was cited. On merits it was submitted that NAW 1 has specifically stated in his statement that no accident was caused with his vehicle. When he saw a crowd, he stopped the vehicle and saw one person and a child injured and lying dead. He stated on oath that he was falsely implicated on a false report. For award of compensation the multiplier applied is on higher side.
7. Re: Maintainability of the application for compensation: The respondent No. 1, the widow of the deceased Rajkaran and mother of deceased son Lavlesh, and the respondent No. 2, the father of the deceased Rajkaran as legal representatives of the deceased filed the application under Section 166 of the Act for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 165 of the Act. Sections 165 and 166 of the Act, so far as relevant for the purposes of this case, we extract:
165. Claims Tribunals.-(1) A State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.
Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression 'claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles' includes claims for compensation under Section 140.
XXX XXX XXX166. Application for compensation.- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made-
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.XXX XXX XXX
A bare reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 166 shows that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 165 can be made by the person who has sustained the injury, in case of injury, or where the death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, or by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. It is not disputed that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the legal representatives of the deceased Rajkaian and Lavlesh, who claim compensation for two deaths arising out of same accident, against the same tortfeasors. From the language of Section 166 it is clearly envisaged that where death has resulted from an accident the application can be filed by all or any of the legal representatives and in that situation more than one person can be joined in the application for compensation. The two members of one family have died in the motor accident. Legal representatives of the deceased persons claimed compensation for the two deaths arising out of the motor accident.
8. The law does not prohibit filing of the joint claim for compensation for the death or deaths arising out of same motor accident, by the same legal representatives who are members of the same family, and represent the estate of the deceased person), as the joint claim petition arises out of the same cause of action. In such a case, there is no misjoinder of causes of action or misjoinder of parties. On the other hand such a joint petition reduces the work load of the court/Tribunal, time and expenses of the parties. Even if there would have been separate applications, the evidence on the issue of negligence ought to have been recorded as common. Therefore, there is a justification for filing of the joint claim and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the joint application was maintainable. Therefore, reliance on Basantlal's case 1977 ACJ 219 (MP), is inappropriate. But on the other hand, the observations in Basantlal's case (supra) support the view that in case of claim by the legal representative of the deceased or deceased persons of one and the same family who died in same accident all the legal representatives may be joined as applicants in single application to claim compensation as it will not be a case of misjoinder of parties or causes of action.
9. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kuntala Swain 1993 ACJ 65 (Orissa), a learned single judge of Orissa High Court on single application for the compensation of wife and his daughter, filed by the claimant held that such single application is maintainable.
10. Re: Negligence: The finding of the Tribunal that the two deaths were caused in the motor accident because of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 is unassailable. Except the statement of the driver, NAW 1, no other evidence was adduced by the appellants to establish the defence that no accident occurred, while admittedly there were passengers in the bus as also there was a crowd assembled. It is also not pointed out by the appellants or the driver why that bus alone was implicated for causing the accident. It is also not the case of the appellants that some other vehicle caused the accident. In such circumstances and the fact that immediately after the accident a crowd gathered, report was lodged, the vehicle was seized, respondent No. 3 was taken into custody and that the respondent No. 3 is facing trial, all go to show that it is the vehicle of the appellants which was being driven by the respondent No. 3 that caused the motor accident. The deceased were pedestrians going on the left side of the road who were dashed by the bus resulting in their death instantaneously. Circumstances speak for themselves. Even if there would not have been any eyewitness of the accident the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would have been applied very well.
11. It is well settled principle that when a finding of trial court on an issue turns on appreciation of oral evidence, unless any special feature is pointed out so as to disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses the appellate court should permit the finding of the trial court to prevail. Nothing so was pointed out in the statement of the widow Jagrania nor it was pointed out that there is sufficient balance of improbability to displace the opinion of credibility of the witnesses. Therefore, this Court in appeal will permit the findings of fact rendered by the Tribunal to prevail. [See: Madhusudan Das v. Narayani Bai AIR 1983 SC 114].
12. Re: Compensation: The Tribunal's approach in determining the dependency and applying the multiplier of 33 to the multiplicand of Rs. 3,000/- cannot be appreciated. On the evidence adduced, even assuming that the deceased was earning Rs. 500/- only, the amount of personal living expenses could not have been 50 per cent. The widow specifically stated in her statement that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month. Even assuming that there was no corroboration, even if the minimum wages is taken into account the earning of the deceased would not have been less than Rs. 1,000/-, dependency would not have been less than Rs. 500/-per month, applying the multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 96,000/-, besides Rs. 10,000/-, a conventional amount under the head of consortium. As to the death of Lavlesh minimum compensation, as per no fault liability principle under Section 140, i.e., Rs. 50,000/- would be payable, to total amount of Rs. 1,56,000/- which the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would be entitled with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum. The amount shall be deposited by the appellants within a period of two months, less the amount already deposited by it, from the date of supply of certified copy. On deposit the Tribunal shall disburse to the father, the respondent No. 2 an amount of Rs. 30,000/- with its interest, the balance Rs. 1,26,000/- with interest shall be disbursed to the respondent No. 1 keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) and Lilaben Udesing Gohel v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1996 ACJ 673 (SC).
13. Before parting with the case we would like to say that the appellant Corporation instead of contesting the claim on technical plea of maintainability of joint application and that the accident did not occur with its vehicle, the vehicle was not involved, should have adopted the humane approach, as it is expected from the welfare State corporate bodies that they will devise a method for the settlement of the cases outside the court and they may rush at the door of the victim and pay compensation without inviting them to court, as said by the Supreme Court long back in the case of Rajasthan State Road Trans, Corporation v. Narain Shanker 1980 ACJ 411 (SC).
14. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. Cross-objections are allowed, the award of the Tribunal shall stand modified as indicated hereinabove. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall get costs of this appeal. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000/-, if pre-certified.