Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. By this order four F.A.Os bearing Nos. 137 of 1985 (claim petition No. 20 of 1983) filed by Prithi Pal Singh appellant against the respondents, 174 of 1985 (claim petition No. 21 of 1983) filed by Mst. Amrit Kaur against the respondents, 173 of 1985 (Claim petition No. 22 of 1983) filed my Mst. Amrit Kaur and Prithi Pal Singh appellants against the respondents and 432 of 1985 (claim petition No. 53 of 1983) filed by Smt. Sudarshan Kaur appellant qua respondents are being decided together as they arise out of a common judgment delivered by the Claims Tribunal, Karnal as the claimants sustained injuries and lost their relatives in the accident which took place on 5.9.1982 near Madhuban between Punjab Roadways bus bearing No. PJQ-4628 and Haryana Roadways but bearing No. HYK-1817 (in short to be referred to as Punjab bus and Haryana bus.
2. Appellant Prithi Pal Singh claimed Rs. one lac from the respondents alleging that on the date of accident, he was travelling in Punjab bus for going to Delhi. Near Madhuban, this accident took place as Punjab bus tried to over take a tractor trolly going ahead of it. Its speed was very fast and in the attempt of over-taking, it dashed against the Haryana bus, which was coming from the opposite direction. In this accident, his son succumbed to the injuries on the spot and his wife sustained grievous injuries, her face is disfigured. He was earning Rs. 24000/- per annum. He is income-tax payee. He suffered heavily as his efficiency and earning capacity has gone down because he is under constant tension and shock after the accident. His son, after coming of age, would have helped him and he felt handicapped as he has lost his brilliant and intelligent son.
3. Respondent No.1 - State of Haryana in its written statement controverted theallegations made in the claim petition and averred that the accident took place at 1.30 P.M. The Haryana bus was not being driven rashly or negligently. Thus, the Haryana State is not liable to pay any compensation. It is also objected that excessive compensation amount is claimed. So far as death of his son is concerned, separate claim petition has been filed by him and his wife. Therefore, on account of his son's death and injuries sustained by his wife Amrit Kaur he cannot claim anything from the respondents. The Haryana bus was slowed down at HAP Complex Madhuban as few passenger were to be alighted there. At that very time, the Punjab bus came from the opposite direction in a very rash and negligent manner, tried to over take a truck going head of it hence, suddenly driver of Punjab bus turned his bus towards right side and dashed against the Haryana bus. Thus, this accident took place because of the negligence of Punjab bus.
4. The Punjab State also controverted all these pleas of the claimants and contended that this accident took place because the Haryana bus had gone to the wrong side. Hence, the Punjab Government is not liable to pay anything. The Punjab bus was being driven at a normal speed, but Haryana bus was coming from the opposite direction and suddenly, its front first tyre got bursted. The Punjab bus driver immediately took his bus to the extreme left side of the road, but still Haryana bus, as it has gone out of control, came on the wrong side of the road, and hit the Punjab bus. Thus, according to them, this accident took place because of the negligence of the driver of Haryana bus.
5. Amrit Kaur, in her claim petition No. 21 of 1983 claimed Rs. 4 lacs for her own injuries which resulted in disfiguration of the face. According to her, she boarded the Punjab bus from Jalandhar and was to, go to Delhi. She was travelling with her husband and son Sumit Raj Singh. The buses were being plied at a very high speed. After the accident, she was initially removed to Karnal hospital and then to Jaipur hospital, where she is taking treatment of doctor Sardar Singh. She alleged that she has spent Rs. 10,000/- on her treatment. Because of her facial disfigurement, her mental equilibrium had gone upset. In this accident, she has lost her six years aged son. She was operated upon on 12.9.1982 as some glass pieces and wood splinters were found in different injuries sustained by her.
6. In Claim Petition No. 22 of 1983, Smt. Amrit Kaur and Prithi Pal Singh claim Rs. 4 lacs for untimely death of their son in this vehicular accident. Their son was brilliant, intelligent and promising, who was doing very well in the school. He would have proved to be a real assistance to his father.
7. In Claim petition No. 53 of 1983 Smt. Sudarshan Kaur claimed Rs. 2.50 lacs as compensation for the death of her only son Charan Kamal, who died in this accident. At that time Charan Kamal was aged about 20-1/2 years. He had a bright academic career. Despite his study, he was running a Poultry Farm and was also looking after the agricultural land. She was dependent upon him. After his death, there was none to look after the poultry farm, hence, majority of the birds died and poultry Farm had to be closed down thereby she suffered a loss of Rs. 9000/-. She had to employ a servant for cultivating the agricultural land. She is paying him Rs. 300/- per month. Charan Kamal was sitting in Punjab bus near one of the windows. The bus was being driven rashly and negligently. When it reached near Madhuban, the Haryana bus came from the opposite direction, which was also being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Both the drivers did not take any step to control their speed, the result was a head on collision.
8. In all these claim petitions, respondents have reiterated their same pleas, which they took up in Claim Petition No. 20 of 1983 filed by Prithi Pal Singh. Parties adduced evidence in support of their pleadings.
9. Learned Claims Tribunal vide his awards dated 5.11.1984 dismissed the Claim Petition of Prithi Pal Singh, granted compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to Smt. Amrit Kaur, allowed Rs. 15,000/- to be paid to Smt. Amrit Kaur and Prithi Pal Singh for the death of their son and granted Rs. 2,16,000/- to Smt. Sudarshan Kaur for the death of her son. The other claim petitions filed with these petition were also decided by this very judgment.
10. In all these four appeals, the State of Haryana and the State of Punjab-respondents have raised the contention that their State is not liable to pay compensation. As per the impugned award, they have been made liable to pay compensation in equal shares. So far as the State of Punjab is concerned, their counsel vehemently argued that there is reliable evidence on record that their bus was on its left side. After the accident also, it turtled on the kacha portion of the road. According to him, the Haryana bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. It came towards its right side of the road and dashed against the Punjab bus. Before this accident, its one tyre was bursted, the driver could not control over the vehicle and thus, it dashed it against the Punjab bus, which was being driven at a slow speed.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana contended that there is evidence on record that before this accident, a truck was going ahead of Punjab bus. The driver of Punjab bus tried to over take this truck without noticing that the Haryana bus is coming from the opposite direction. The driver of the Punjab bus was rash and negligent, he could not control the bus and thus, his bus swerved towards its right side and dashed against the Haryana bus, which was moving at slow speed because before this accident, some passengers were to be alighted at the bus stop of Madhuban. Thus, according to him, the whole liability to pay compensation to the petitioners is that of Punjab State and not of Haryana State.
12. After scanning evidence on record, the lower Court came to the conclusion that this accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of both the drivers. Hence, it ordered that the awarded amount of compensation be paid by the State of Punjab and the State of Haryana in equal shares.
13. Appellants learned counsel in all four appeals repelling the above contentions assiduously argued that from the evidence on record, it is evident that the drivers of both the buses were rash and negligent. They failed to slow down their buses despite, entreaty made by the passengers to that effect. Therefore, both of them dashed against each other. The Court below has rightly placed reliance on the statements of these witnesses.
14. So far as the liability of respondents is concerned, in my considered view, there is no aberration in the impugned award. This finding is based on sound reasoning after thoroughly marshalling of the evidence available on the record. So far as this point is concerned, statements of Netar Singh PW-9, Umesh Kumar PW-11, Chand Kumar PW-13, Smt. Amrit Kaur PW-15, Dr. O.P. Chug RW-1, Tara Chand RW-2, Krishan Chand RW-3 and Yogesh Kumar RW-6 are to be considered.
15. Netar Singh PW-9 was travelling in Punjab bus along with constable Ram Parkash. He is categoric that the Punjab bus was being driven by the driver at the speed of 60/70 Kilometers per hour. In his estimation, Haryana bus was coming at a fast speed. He has stated that the Punjab bus driver tried to over take a truck. He is categoric that Haryana bus was at its left side.
16. Umesh Kumar PW-11 boarded the Haryana bus from Panipat for Kaithal. In his estimation, Haryana bus was going at a speed of 65 to 70 kilometers per hour. He asked by the driver. Punjab bus was coming from Karnal side and near police Complex, Madhuban, both the buses came in the middle of the road and as their speed was fast, they collided against each other in the middle of the road. He has denied this suggestion that before this accident, Haryana bus driver slowed down the bus as some passengers were to alight at Madhuban bus stop. He has also denied the suggestion that Haryana bus was on its extreme left of the road and Punjab bus while over taking the bus dashed against the Haryana bus. He has also denied that Punjab bus was on its left side and was being driven at a moderate speed.
17. In the estimation of Chand Kumar PW-13 the speed of Haryana bus wherein he was travelling was 80 K.Ms. per hour. Punjab bus was also fast. This accident took place because of the negligence of both the drivers. Haryana bus came in the middle of the road. He has denied the suggestion that Punjab bus took over the truck going ahead of it. After the accident, Punjab bus turtled towards its left side. He was occupying the second seat from the front window. He has clearly, stated that his driver was driving the vehicle very fast, was going in a zig zag mariner and the collision was sudden.
18. Amrit Kaur PW-15 was going in Punjab bus, She is categoric in her statement that both the drivers were driving their vehicles at a very fast speed. Many passengers asked them to slow down their speed, but they never listened to them. In cross-examination, she has admitted that Punjab bus was on its left side. She has denied the suggestion that the driver made an attempt to over take a truck. In her estimation, Haryana bus was coming at very fast speed. The road was double at the place where the accident took place and fairly wide. There as no traffic at that time.
19. Dr. O.P. Chug RW-1 is examined by the respondent-Haryana State as an expert. He was called at the spot by the official of Haryana State on the date of accident to examine the spot, who gave an opinion about the accident. He has stated that right front tyre of Haryana bus was bearing a cut. He has submitted his report Exhibit R-l, though he was cross-examined at length, but he is categoric that the Punjab bus was plying and the Haryana bus was standing on its left side of the road as one goes to Delhi. The impact was very great. In answer to Question No.12, he has clearly stated that since the Haryana bus moved hardly two meters while Punjab bus moved, 20 meters, it shows that Haryana bus was slower as compared to the Punjab bus. Tilting of Punjab bus further shows that it was moving at very high speed and the sharp dust line equal to the length of the Haryana bus also indicated that Haryana bus was moving slow and from the site plan prepared by him, it is evident that both the buses came in between the road at the time of accident and as both the buses were being driven at a very fast speed because of the great impact, Punjab bus turned turtle towards it left side of kacha portion of the road, while, Haryana bus was standing on the left side.
20. Tara Chand RW-2, driver of Haryana bus, has admitted that in this accident, driver's side of both the buses were involved, which clearly indicates that this accident took place in the middle of the road.
21. Harbans Lal RW-5 is the conductor of Punjab bus who has stated that the Punjab bus did not take over any truck, but there was sound of burst of a tyre. Haryana bus swerved on towards its wrong side and thus, this accident took place.
22. Yogesh Kumar RW-6 was travelling in Punjab bus. According to him, this bus was moving at the speed of 35/40 K.Ms. per hour, while the Haryana bus was coming at a fast speed.
23. Thus, from minutely scanning the statements of all these witnesses, it becomes evident that both the buses were being driven by the drivers at a very fast speed. Even if, it is to be believed that Punjab bus swerved towards its right side while taking over a truck, but still if the speed would have been within the control of the driver, he could have averted the accident. Similarly, even if it is to be believed that before this accident, one of the front tyres of the Haryana bus bursted, even then if the bus would have been driven at a moderate speed, the driver would have been in a position to control the bus and could have stopped his bus on its right side, i.e., left side of the road, while coming from Panipat to Karnal. But from the report of doctor Chug as well as from the site plan prepared by him, which is a part of his report, coupled with the ocular evidence on record, it is evident that both the buses were being driven at an excessive speed and as both of them came in the middle part of the road, it resulted in head on collision, resulting in the death of few passengers while others sustained injuries. Punjab bus also turned turtle towards its left side of the road, which is a further indication that speed of both the buses was excessive, which resulted in such a great impact.
24. Thus, in my considered view, the learned Claims Tribunal has not fallen into any error in holding both the States are equally liable for this accident as well as for payment of compensation.
25. Appellants' counsel in appeal No. 137 of 1985 contended that the Claims Tribunal has failed to award any amount to Prithi Pal Singh, though this fact is duly proved on record that in this accident, his minor son died and his wife Amrit Kaur sustained severe injuries and still her face is disfigured. Because of the loss of his son and injuries sustained by his wife, he has suffered mentally and physically, his business has gone down. He is an income tax payee. Thus, according to him, some reasonable amount ought to have been granted to him for mental and physical shock and suffering,
26. In my considered view, the Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed his petition. Prithi Pal Singh himself has not entered the witness box. He has not produced any documentary evidence to show that his business has gone down because of the death of his son or because of the injuries sustained by his wife. Hence, in my considered view, there is no substance in the said argument and accordingly, appeal No. 137 of 1985 is hereby dismissed.
27. So far as appeal No. 174 of 1985 is concerned, the appellant's learned counsel contended that Smt. Amrit Kaur has claimed Rs. 4 lacs for her personal injuries, but the learned Claims Tribunal has only awarded Rs. 10,000/-. In this accident, Amrit Kaur sustained four minor injuries.Dr. O.P. Goel PW-4 has proved those injuries. According to him, she had multiple small lacerated wound on right knee; multiple small lacerated wound on right forearm and arm; multiple lacerated wound on right face and scalp (X-ray of skull was advised); and she was complaining of pain at the back of chest.
28. Shaft-Ulla Khan PW-10 has testified that on 5.9.1982 he came to Karnal to take Amrit Kaur to Jaipur in his taxi. He took her to Jaipur on 6.9.1982. As per receipt Exhibit PW-10/A, he charged Rs. 1206/- from her as taxi charges. Dr. Sardar Singh PW-8 is the physician of Amrit Kaur who treated her at Jaipur. She was admitted in the hospital from 6th to 21st September, 1982. She was operated upon on 12.9.1982 for injuries on her face which contained foreign body and sinex was not healing and part plastic surgery was also done. The doctor is categoric that he did not charge anything for her treatment, nursing care, hospitalisation or operation, but she must have spent Rs. 2500/- on her medicines. He has also suggested that her facial disfigurement can be removed by another plastic surgery.
29. Amrit Kaur PW- 15 has stated that another plastic surgery is advised, but she has not yet got it done as it is a lengthy procedure. She has also stated that she engaged one Aiya for looking after her and one servant for cooking. She is paying Rs. 250/- per month to the Aiya and Rs. 350/- to the cook. She has not stated a word about the purchase of medicines nor has produced any voucher/cash memo for the same. Considering this evidence, the tribunal has awarded Rs. 2000/- for medicines, Rs. 1200/- for taxi charges, Rs. 1800/- for Aiya and servant and Rs. 5000/- for mental shock and disfigurement. Thus, total amount of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded to her. Learned Claims Tribunal has not taken into consideration this fact that she has to undergo another plastic surgery for getting her facial disfigurement remedied. It is common sense that such plastic surgery would cost a heavy amount.
30. Thus, in my considered view, for her future treatment also, some amount ought to have been awarded to her. In my considered opinion, an amount of Rs. 10000/- would meet the expenses of future operation.
31. Thus, this appeal is partly allowed enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 10,000/- more. The order passed by the Claims Tribunal is hereby modified.
32. So far as appeal No. 173 of 1985 is concerned, admittedly, in this accident, Amrit Kaur and Prithi Pal Singh lost their minor son. At the time of the accident, he was aged about 6 years. Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- only and that too under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of no fault liability. The appellants have suffered a great mental shock as they have lost their minor-son, who could have supported them in their old age. They have been deprived of his love and affection. No doubt, the loss of human life cannot be compensated by money, but at the same time, this fact should not be lost sight of that if in a vehicular accident, minor-son dies, parents suffer a lot on account of his death not only physically but also mentally. The shock is unbearable for them. For months together, such parents are not in their normal make up. While awarding compensation, these facts should also be taken into consideration.
33. Thus, in my considered view, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- more ought to have been awarded to them for untimely death of their son. Thus, this appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation awarded to the parents is enhanced by Rs.25,000/-.
34. In appeal No. 432 of 1985, claimant Smt. Sudarshan Kaur's only son breathed his last in this vehicular accident. She is a widow. Charan Kamal, her son, was the bread winner.
35. She has stated that he was studying in B.A. Part II, was running a Poultry Farm, which consisted of 1000 chicks and was also looking after their agricultural operations. She has six killas of land. After untimely death of her son, as no body could look after Poultry Farm, all 1000 chicks died. She has stated that Charan Kamal was earning Rs. 1000/- per month from the poultry farm and Rs. 500/- from cultivation. In her estimation, cost of chicks, who dies, was Rs. 9000/-. After her son's death, she has engaged one Ramji Dass at monthly rate of Rs. 300/- to look after the cultivation of her land and she has to close down the poultry farm.
36. Ramji Dass PW-2 has proved her statement to this extent that after the death of her son, she has engaged him to look after her fields.
37. Charanjit Singh PW-6 has proved that Charan Kamal has purchased chicks worth Rs. 4250/- from him against receipt Exhibit PW-6/A. She has claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation. The tribunal has granted Rs. 9000/- as cost of the chicks. He has held that monthly income from the poultry farm of Charan Kamal could not be more than Rs. 500/- per month and from the agricultural operation, he might not have earned more than Rs. 250/- per month. Thus, his total income is assessed at Rs. 750/- per month. After deducting l/3rd from his personal expenses, mother's dependency is worked out at Rs. 500/- per month. Adopting a multiplier of 16, Rs. 96000/- is awarded as compensation on this count. Thus, the total amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- is awarded to her.
38. Appellants' learned counsel contends that he was a young man of 20-1/2 years. He was a blooming child. He was studying in B.A. Part I and side by side to support his mother, he was running a poultry farm and was also looking after the cultivation. Thus, it is obvious that he was not only intelligent but diligent and hard working as well. The lower Court has assessed his monthly income at the lower figure.
39. Secondly, his contention is that the future prospects of her son have not been considered by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, according to him, considering the future prospects of the son, the dependency should have been assessed at least at Rs. 700/-per month. No doubt, no account has been submitted by the mother so far as the running of poultry farm is concerned. But she has clearly stated that she did not find any account book in the poultry farm after the death of her son. She has unequivocally stated that she visited the poultry farm only at the time of its inauguration. If the son was running a poultry farm with 1000 chicks, he must be earning Rs. 500/-per month considering the rising Price Index. In future, he could have expanded farm. Thus, taking into consideration his future prospects, in my considered view, his monthly income from the poultry farm can be assessed at Rs. 800/- per month.
40. So far as income from the cultivation is concerned, in my considered view, it does not require any interference because the claimant is having only six killas of land. Thus, the total income of deceased could be assessed at Rs. 1050/-. Deducting l/3rd from his personal expenses, the dependency of the claimant is determined at Rs. 700/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased and the age of the claimant, the Claims Tribunal has rightly adopted a multiplier of 16. Thus, according to me on this count, the claimant is entitled to recover Rs.1,34,000/- from the respondents alongwith Rs. 9000/- awarded for the loss of birds. Thus, the appeal is allowed. Compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,43,400/-.
41. In all the appeals except appeals No. 137 of 1985, appellants learned counsel has further argued that the claims Tribunal has awarded interest that the rate of 6 per cent per annum only, while it should have been awarded at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. On this point, catena of authorities are cited which are not required to be mentioned specifically. In all the appeals, interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum is being awarded by the Courts. Even in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sushma Thomas, (1994-2)107 P.L.R.1, the Apex Court has awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Therefore, this prayer is granted.
42. In appeal No. 174 of 1985, Amrit Kaur shall not be entitled to recover interest on the awarded amount of Rs. 10,000/- for her future operation, in all the appeals including appeal Nos. 174, 173 and 432 of 1985, the claimants shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of the petition before the Claims Tribunal till the date of realisation.
43. Consequently, appeal No. 137/85 is dismissed. Rest of the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above.