S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. ADMIT.
2. As the matter is short, the appeal with the consent of the parties has been heard and disposed of by this order.
3. This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal had allowed the claim application of the respondents claiming compensation for the death of the husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondents 2 and 3 who had died in a road accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the jail van owned by the appellants. A few facts relevant for deciding the appeal are:-
On June 13, 1994 while the deceased was going to his office at about 9.30am and was waiting by the side of pavement for clearance of the traffic, the jail van belonging to the Government of NCT of Delhi, came from Dhaulan Kuan side in a shooting speed and took a sudden turn on Sadar Patel Marg and dashed against the deceased dragging him and crushing him at the spot. As a result of the accident, the deceased received injuries which proved to be fatal. Claiming that the accident was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the jail van by its driver, the respondents filed an application claiming compensation for the death of the deceased in the said road accident. The application for compensation was contested by the appellants on the ground that the accident was not caused by the rash and negligent driving of the jail van by its driver. It was submitted that while the jail van had turned from Dhaulan Kuan to Sadar Patel Marg a bus bearing no. DEP 7568 was going ahead of the van; that the driver of the van tried to overtake the bus and when it was turning towards Bapu Dham the aforesaid bus suddenly swerved towards right and in the process the rear side bumper of the bus got entangled with the front left side bumper of the jail van and as a result of this entanglement, the jail van was dragged along the bus and in the meantime the brake pipe of the van also cracked resulting in the failure of the brakes. It was alleged that the deceased, who was waiting by the side of the footpath, was hit by the bus and not by the jail van. It was also alleged that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and not by the jail van and the appellant was, thereforee, not liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased in the said accident.
4. The Tribunal on the basis of these averments and on the basis of the evidence recorded by it came to the conclusion that it was entirely because of the negligence of the driver of the jail van that the accident was caused and since the deceased had died in the said accident, the respondents were entitled to claim compensation for his death from the appellants. The Tribunal, accordingly, passed an award of Rs. 4,70,592/- Along with interest @ 12% per annum in favor of the respondents and against the appellants. This award, as already mentioned above, has now been challenged by the appellants by filing the present appeal.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that since the bus bearing registration no. DEP-7568 was involved in the accident, the application claiming compensation was bad because of non-joinder of necessary parties. It is submitted that the owner and driver of the aforesaid bus ought to have been added as respondents and only the owner and driver of the bus are liable to pay compensation, if any, to the respondents as accident was caused due to their negligence. It is also submitted that since the wife of the deceased has been granted employment by the department where the deceased was employed, the Tribunal ought not have taken the loss of dependency to the respondents at 2/3rd of the income of the deceased.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record but I am unable to agree with the submissions made by Mrs. Ahlawat, learned counsel for the appellant. The fact that the brakes of the jail van had failed clearly shows the poor state of maintenance of their vehicles by the respondents. Moreover, the only eye witness to the accident has clearly stated that it was because of the rash and negligent driving of the jail van that the accident had taken place. Even the FIR and report of the said accident shows that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of jail van. Besides the driver of the jail van there were many other occupants of the van, including the police officials, however, not a single occupant of the van has been produced to state as to how the accident took place. In view of the evidence on record, I am unable to agree with learned counsel for the appellant that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the bus bearing no. DEP-7568. I agree with the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to the negligent driving of the jail van and the appellants are liable to pay compensation to the family of the deceased.
7. Coming to the quantum of the compensation, I find that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and the balance amount has been taken to be the loss of dependency to the family. I do not find any infirmity with these findings of the Tribunal. No doubt, the wife of the deceased has been given employment by the department where the respondent was employed but that will not in any manner have any effect upon the loss of dependency to the family. I, thereforee, do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. There are no merits in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs
8. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. The respondent will be at liberty to withdraw the amount in terms of the award of the Tribunal.