Judgment:
S.B. Wad, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants against order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 18-3-1986 rejecting the claim for compensation.
2. The accident took place on 3-2-1980 at about 9.00 p.m. somewhere around Bhagat Singh Market. The bus, bearing No. DEP 3838, hit the deceased Bhag Ram Ahuja while taking a turn in great speed. The deceased was taken to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where he was declared dead. Ramji Dass is the eye witness. He was disbelieved by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also found that no site plan nor the inspection report of the vehicle was produced by the claimants. The Tribunal, thereforee, dismissed the claim petition.
3. Eye witness, Ramji Dass, had stated in his evidence that he was traveling in the bus which caused the accident and was sitting on the front seat near the driver. He stated that the bus was being run at a high speed of about 50 kilometers per hour and the passengers in the bus asked the driver not to drive the bus at such a fast speed, but he did not heed to it. When the bus reached near Madras Hotel, the driver took a sharp turn at a great speed and the deceased was run over by the bus. The bus stopped 3 to 4 yards from the place of accident. When he got down from the bus, he saw the deceased lying injured. He further deposed that the bus did not blow horn while turning. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not see the accident with his own eyes. He stated that the other persons who assembled there told him that the deceased was run over by the front wheel. The Tribunal rejected the evidence of the eye witness on the ground that it was a hear-say evidence and was not admissible in law. The Tribunal has clearly erred in the appreciation of the evidence of the eye witness. The eye witness was traveling in the same bus which caused the accident. A suggestion was made to him in the cross-examination that he was not traveling in the bus. The same was rejected by him. There was no cross examination on the point that the bus was being run at a fast speed of SO kilometers and in the same speed it took the turn without blowing the horn. He was only asked a question whether he wrote a complaint in the complaint book maintained in the bus. There is also no cross-examination on the point that he was sitting on the front seat near the driver In these circumstances, the statement of the eye witness that he did not see the accident with his own eyes has to be appreciated. As the facts disclose the deceased was run over by the front wheel, which would come almost below the front seat where he was sitting. The person being hit in such circumstances cannot be seen, but the eye witness immediately got down and then found the deceased in an injured condition hit by the front wheel of the bus. Considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the eye witness, Ramji Dass, is a truthful witness and has given the correct description of the accident.
4. The statement of the eye witness can also be considered along with the defense taken by the owner of the vehicle in his written statement It was pleaded in the written statement that the deceased had himself run on to the road, got confused on seeing the bus and came under the bus. No evidence was produced by the owner in the proceedings before the Tribunal in support of this story put forth by the owner.
5. The Tribunal further erred in holding that the claimants had failed to produce the site plan and also the inspection report of the vehicle. According to the counsel for the appellants, he made a number of attempts by summoning the Police, who had prepared a site plan and inspection report, but they never attended the court. Apart from this, the evidence of the site plan and the inspection report of the vehicle was not crucial in this case because the owner had not challenged the site nor has stated that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. His only defense was that it was the deceased who himself was responsible for coming under the bus due to his confusion. Absence of the site plan and inspection report of the vehicle does not, thereforee, affect the veracity of the testimony of the eye witness, as wrongly held by the Tribunal.
6. I, thereforee, hold that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving by bus No. DEP 3838, and the owner, the insurance company and the driver are liable to pay the compensation.
7. The deceased was working as a personal assistant to a Minister in Haryana drawing the salary of Rs. 1150/- per month at the time of his death. The appellants claim that his salary in the normal course would have increased, at least, up to Rs. 2000/-. They also claim that the deceased was only 37 years old at the time of accident and would have certainly lived up to the age of 70. The rise in the salary and longevity, as suggested by the appellants, are in the areas of uncertainty. In such cases, deductions are made for uncertainties of life and lumps urn payment. From my experience in these appeals, I find that the better way to arrive at a proper compensation is to take reliable facts in this regard. The deceased was a Government servant, and, thereforee, his age of retirement was 58. In these circumstances, to take a multiplier of 21 would be more safe. Out of Rs. 1150/- per month as the salary, it may be assumed that about less than l/3rd of the amount was being spent by him on his personal expenses considering the fact that he was to support a large family consisting of himself, wife and four children. The annual contribution towards his family would, thereforee, be Rs. 10,000/-. On this computation, the compensation comes up to Rs 2,10,000/-. The appellants would also be entitled to 9% simple interest from the date of application till the date of payment.
8. Respondent No. 2, Insurance Company, has produced the insurance policy. According to the insurance . policy, the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 50,000/-. The various items of the premium amount paid by the owner does not show that the owner bad paid additional premium for unlimited liability. I, thereforee, hold that the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs 50,000/-and proportionate interest. The driver of the bus in question had died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. The owner was vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver. The owner, Ram Sarup, (respondent No. 1), is thereforee liable to pay Rs. 1,60,000/- and the proportionate interest. The compensation amount should be paid within two months from today. The appeal is allowed with costs. The owner and the insurance company will be liable to pay costs proportionate to their liability for payment of compensation.