Judgment:
ORDER
H.S. Bhalla, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 9-3-1994 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased was dismissed.
2. It is unnecessary to burden my award with the facts of the case, inasmuch as, these have been, in detail, recapitulated by the learned Tribunal. However, the facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are that on 16-3-1993 at 8.30 a.m. deceased Manohar Lal along with his son Pardeep Kumar boarded Pepsu Roadways Bus No. PBII-9490, driven by Bhagwant Singh driver, respondent No. 2, from Ludhiana. When the bus reached in the area of Pehowa, then a checker of the roadways gave a signal to stop it near Petrol Pump and started checking the tickets of the passengers in the bus. Manohar Lal and Pardeep Kumar got down from the bus. Manohar Lal climbed on the roof of the bus to remove his luggage. Respondent No. 2, driver of the bus, suddenly started the bus without blowing any horn, as a result of which, Manohar Lal fell down from the roof of the bus and became unconscious. Immediately, the injured was removed to Civil Hospital, Pehowa, where he was treated. He was then referred to C.M.C. Ludhiana, where he died on 19-3-1993.
3. The learned Tribunal, after framing of issues and appreciating the ocular as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties on the record of the case, has dismissed the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.
5. The sole question that arises for consideration in this claim petition is, as to whether Manohar Lal had fallen from the roof of the bus of his own or he had fallen down from the bus when respondent No. 2, driver of the bus, had started the bus without caring that Manohar Lal was on the roof of the bus in order to unload his luggage. If this Court, after analysing the oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record, comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to rash and negligent of respondent No. 2, the driver of the bus, are found to be perverse and the death occurred on account of negligence on the part of respondent No. 2, then the answer of the question posed hereinabove, goes against respondent No. 2 and in that eventuality, the petition has to be allowed. The case of the claimants has to be analysed on the basis of evidence available on the record of the case.
6. Pardeep Kumar, the son of deceased Manohar Lal, appeared in the witness box as P.W. 3 and deposed on oath that on 15-3-1993 he along with his father was travelling in bus No. PBII-9490, which started from Ludhiana to Pehowa. The bus stopped near Petrol Pump, Pehowa, inasmuch as a ticket checker gave a signal to stop it. Their relatives were residing near the place where the bus stopped. They decided to get down. After making an inquiry from the conductor of the bus, his father climbed over the roof of the bus in order to remove the luggage. Suddenly, the bus driver started the bus and his father fell down from the roof of the bus. He became unconscious. He has further deposed that he removed his father to Civil Hospital, Pehowa and thereafter, he was shifted to C.M.C. Ludhiana. where he died on 19-3-1993. He maintained that the bus driver had not bothered to know the fact as to whether Manohar Lal, who had climbed over the roof of the bus, has gone down or not before he started the bus. The bus conductor also did not check that his father had not got down from the bus. He has categorically denied that he was not present at the time of accident.
7. Ashok Kumar, who is an independent witness to the occurrence, appeared in the witness box as P.W. 4 and deposed that one person had climbed over the roof of the bus, which had stopped near the petrol pump Pehowa. When the bus started, one person fell down and he rushed to the spot. He further stated that by the time the bus had travelled up to a distance of 10-20 feet. The son of the injured had informed him that they had come from Ludhiana.
8. On the other hand, the respondents produced Bhagwant Singh, driver of the bus, who appeared in the witness box as R.W. 1 and deposed that on 16-3-1993 he was driver of bus No. PBII-9490 enroute from Ludhiana to Pehowa. When the bus reached near Petrol Pump, Pehowa, a checker gave a signal to stop the bus. Consequently, he stopped it. Inspector started checking the tickets of the passengers of the bus. One passenger suddenly was noticed climbing aver the roof of the bus. The inspector, conductor and the passengers asked that passenger not to climb over the roof of the bus. He was also informed that luggage would be unloaded at Pehowa bus stand. Then he heard about falling of the passenger from the roof of the bus on the alarm raised by the passengers. Thereafter, the injured was removed to the shop of a doctor. He had categorically denied that he had started the bus of his own and son of Manohar Lal had accompanied the injured passenger from Ludhiana, Ram Sarup Aggarwal, Inspector, came into the witness box as R.W. 2 and corroborated the testimony given by Bhagwant Singh (R.W. 1). He also stated that on 16-3-1993 at 12.30 p.m. but No. PBII-9490 was stopped for the purpose of checking. Jagdish Kumar and Kamail Singh Inspectors were also with him at that time. The driver parked the bus on one side and the inspectors went inside the bus in order to check the tickets' of the passengers. He remained outside. At the time, the driver and the conductor came to him. He checked their documents. In the meantime, one passenger came to him and stated that he wanted to unload the luggage lying on the roof of the bus, but he had informed him that the luggage could be unloaded at the bus stand. Thereafter, he got busy in checking the papers. That passenger of his own accord boarded the roof of the bus. When he was in the process of unloading luggage, he got puzzled and lost his balance, as a result of which, he fell down from the roof of the bus. Then he was removed to a private clinic nearby the bus stand.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently contended that from the evidence available on record, it is crystal clear that Manohar Lal had fallen from the roof of the bus and suffered injuries. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents even in the written statement filed before the learned Tribunal. Learned Counsel has further contended that although the learned Tribunal has discussed the evidence of the witnesses minutely, but he has totally misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence of the witnesses and reached a conclusion that is contrary to the facts of the case. The findings recorded by the learned Counsel are perverse, inasmuch as, as per the testimony of the driver of the bus, he had not come to know about the falling of the deceased and he came to know only when the passengers raised alarm. Meaning thereby that he was inside the bus; he had started it and with the jerk of the bus, Manohar Lal, who was on the roof of the bus, lost his control and fell down from the roof of the bus and received injuries. If the driver of the bus, as per their version, was standing with the inspector, outside the bus, then it was the driver, who should have come to know first of all that one passenger was on the roof of the bus and he fell down on the earth on account of the fact that he had lost his control while getting down from the roof of the bus. In such like circumstances, it can easily be inferred that the deceased fell from the roof of the bus only after the bus had started moving. The reasoning given, by the learned tribunal that Manohar Lal fell down from the roof of the bus when it was standing, is erroneous and is liable to be reversed. In order to prove the aforesaid inference. I find support from the testimony of the independent witness viz. Ashok Kumar (P.W. 4), who has categorically stated that one person had climbed over the roof of the bus, which had stopped near the petrol pump at Pehowa. When the bus started, one person fell down and he rushed to the spot. By the time, the bus had travelled up to a distance of ten or twenty feet. Meaning thereby that the deceased fell from the roof of the bus only after the bus had been started by the driver. Had the driver been outside the bus, he would have been the first person, who could see that passenger climbing over the roof and falling down from it. He would not have deposed before the learned tribunal that he heard about falling of the passenger from the roof of the bus on the alarm raised by the passengers. This statement of the driver itself sufficient to come to a conclusion that the accident took place due to negligence committed on the part of the driver of the bus, without caring this aspect of the matter that one passenger was already on the roof of the bus.
10. Now coming to the part of income, age and dependency of the deceased in order to determine the compensation to be awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased as assessed by the learned Tribunal, after going through the record of the case, which, to my mind, seems to be correct and do not call for any interference except for the multiplier, which needs to be enhanced keeping in view the inflation index prevailing in these days. As per the learned Tribunal, the income of the deceased has been fixed as Rs. 1200/- per month and after deducting 1 /3rd, which the deceased was spending on himself, the dependency comes to Rupees 800/- per month. After taking the age of the deceased as 48 years, a multiplier of 10 was adopted, in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivendrum v. Mrs. Susama Thomas S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9583 of 1992. Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs. 96,000/-. Except for the modification in the matter of multiplier, the rests of the calculations made by the learned Tribunal are, to my mind, correct. Keeping in view the age of the deceased and expectancy of the life, I deem it appropriate to apply a multiplier of 16 instead of 10. By applying a multiplier of 16, the total compensation works out to Rs. 1,53,600/-, which to my mind, would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case and I order accordingly.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present petition succeeds and it is allowed. The claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,53,600/- as compensation to be awarded to the claimants in equal shares. The liability to pay the compensation would be of the owner of the bus, i.e. respondent No. 1 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the awarded amount of compensation from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. The amount of compensation shall be paid by respondent No. 1 within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.