C.M. Nayar, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the award dated May 23,1980 of Mr. R.C. Chopra, Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The respondents-claimants have also filed their cross-objections (C.M. No. 2158/82) claiming enhancement of compensation.
2. The respondents-claimants filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 on the averments that one Khem Karan Lal died in a road accident on January 12,1971 in an accident at about 8 p.m. The deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle No. DLP-4240 which was being driven by respondent No. 5. The present appellant-Dharambir Singh was the conductor of the bus. It was alleged that the deceased boarded the bus and had not even entered the same when the bus was started and when it reached Kishmere Gate in front of Ritz Cinema, respondent No. 5 took a sharp turn as a result of which the wall of Kashmere Gate struck against the body of the deceased who fell down and received multiple injuries on his body as a result of which he died in the hospital later on. It was further alleged that the conductor of the bus, appellant herein, had not waited for the passengers to settle down inside the bus and had given the signal to start the bus without caring for the safety as a result of which the deceased sustained fatal injuries. The deceased was about 38 years of age at the time of accident and was having an income of Rs. 400/-per month. The owner of the bus is respondent No. 6 in the present appeal. Delhi Transport Corporation as well as Municipal Corporation of Delhi were imploded as respondents before the Tribunal but in the present appeal only Delhi Transport Corporation is imploded as a party respondent. The insurer of the bus is M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. respondent No. 7 herein. The respondents claimants claimed compensation of Rs. one lakh and alleged that respondents 5, 6, 7 and 8 were liable to pay the said sum as they were vicariously liable for the tortious act committed by the appellant and respondent No. 5.
3. The respective written statements were filed. The accident was not defined was not denied and it was admitted that respondent No. 6 was owner of the bus and respondent No. 5 was its driver. It was further admitted that respondent No. 7 was the insurer of the offending vehicle. The said respondents took the plea that the accident had occurred because of the negligence of the deceased himself. It was further pleaded that the maximum liability, in any case, of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 20,000/-. The respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation took the plea that the bus was owned by respondent No. 6 at the time of accident and he was solely responsible as he had entered into an agreement with the Delhi Transport Corporation that he will take up insurance policy covering third party risk and the Corporation was not liable for any civil, criminal or any action arising out of the use of the vehicle.
4. Following issues were framed on pleadings of the parties :
1. Whether Khem Karan Lal received fatal injuries in course of an accident with bus No. DLP-4240 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 as alleged in the petition ?
2. Whether respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are not vicariously liable, as alleged in the written statement ?
3. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioner entitled and from whom ?
4. Relief.
5. The learned Judge disposed of issue No. 1 by holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to the extent of 25 per cent only inasmuch as he could have reasonably expected that he would get into the bus before the gate comes or the conductor would ask him to get down from the bus prior to the arrival of the gate or the driver would go through the said gate in such a manner that his body would not come in contact with its walls'. The remaining 75% negligence leading to the accident in question was held to be shared by respondent No. 5 and the appellant. The Delhi Transport Corporation as well as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were not liable to pay any compensation. Issue No. 2 was disposed of accordingly.
6. The respondents-claimants were held to be the legal heirs of the deceased. The age of the deceased was accepted as 38 years and his income as Rs. 400/- per month. The amount which the deceased was accepted to contribute towards the family was Rs. 300/-per month i.e. Rs. 3,600/- per year. The multiplier of 14 years was held to be suitable multiplier to assess the total financial loss to the claimants in this case. The total amount of compensation, accordingly, was awarded at Rs. 50,400/-. After taking into account the contributory negligence assessed to the extent of 25%, the compensation was reduced to Rs. 37,800/- and further deductions were made with regard to Provident Fund, Gratuity and lump sum payment. The total award after taking into account these deductions was made in the figure of Rs. 33,300/-.
7. The learned Judge then assessed the liability of respondent No. 7 to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- only. The award was made in favor of the respondents-claimants against the appellant, respondents 5,6 and 7 to the extent indicated above.
8. The present appeal has been filed by Dharambir Singh, who was conductor of the offending bus. This appeal is totally misconceived as owner of the offending vehicle as well as the Insurance Company are liable to pay compensation, the only contention which has been made by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is aggrieved by the finding that he was responsible for contributory negligence leading to the accident along with the driver of the bus, respondent No. 5, to the extent of 75%. It will not be necessary for me to deal with this question in detail as the driver as well as the conductor were in the employment of respondents No. 6 who was the owner at the time of accident and the accident took place in the course of employment. Respondent No. 6 was held liable for the liability and severally along with the appellant and respondent No. 5. The evidence on record, however, does not justify any interference in this finding.
9. The learned Counsel for respondents-claimants/cross-objectors contended that the Tribunal has erred in using a very low multiplier as the deceased was a young person of 38 years of age and the dependency in the years to come could have increased and he would have contributed more for the family. It is also argued that the deduction on account of Provident Fund, Gratuity and lump sum payment cannot be sustained as the law is fairly well settled that such deductions from the awarded amount are no longer permissible. The learned Counsel has then argued that the contributory negligent attributable to the deceased to the extent of 25 per cent is against the evidence on record and this finding cannot be sustained. The deceased had merely boarded that bus and it was for the conductor as well as for the driver to exercise caution and to see that all the passengers had safely entered the bus before it was given signal to move. The liability of the Insurance Company in the present case could not be assessed at Rs. 5,000/- as the said respondent itself has admitted that the liability was Rs. 20,000/- which had been increased to Rs. 50,000/- by amendment of Section 95(2). This amendment came into force on March 2,1970 (Act No. 56 of 1969). thereforee, it is contended that the liability of respondent No. 7 could not be less than Rs. 50,000/-.
10. The deceased had boarded the bus and had not gone inside the bus when it started moving and when it reached Kashmere Gate, the unfortunate accident took place as the bus took a sharp turn. In this background, it cannot be said that the deceased was negligent as it was for the Conductor to see that all the persons boarding the bus are safely inside before the could blow the whistle for the bus to start. In this background it cannot be said that the deceased was himself responsible for the occurrence. The finding in this regard is, accordingly, reversed.
11. The next question which has been strongly raised before me by learned Counsel for respondent No. 7 is that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited only to the extent of Rs. 5000/- which is the statutory liability, as laid down by the provisions of Section 95(2)(b)(ii). The Tribunal has fallen into an error even on this point as it is the case of the Insurance Company itself that its liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-. It was not the case of the Company that the liability was confined only to Rs. 5000/- on the basis of the deceased being a 'passenger' in the offending bus. The learned Judge has gone against the pleadings and has erroneously held that the liability of the Company is only to the extent of Rs. 5,000/-. The plea with regard to the deceased being a 'passenger' in the bus was neither raised nor argued before the Tribunal. The same cannot be sustained particularly in view of the written statement which has been filed by respondent No. 7 to the effect mat the liability is limited to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- which was subsequently amended to Rs. 50,000/-. This finding of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is set aside.
12. The question of quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal can now be considered. The deceased was working as a Pharmacist in Kingsway Camp Maternity Hospital run by Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Tribunal has assessed the dependency at Rs. 300/- per month. The accident took place as far back as on 12th January, 1971 when the deceased had a span of about 20 years in his working career. There is always scope for future advancement which will obviously result in higher salary and other allowances to which the deceased would have become entitled in view of the changes in the salary structure as a result of Pay Commission Reports. In this view the amount which has been assessed at Rs. 300/- per month as contribution towards his family cannot be held to be adequate. The multiplier adopted is 14 which is also on the lower side as in any case the deceased would have worked till he attained the age of superannuation, which is fixed at 58 years in the Government job. The dependency of the deceased and his contribution towards his family, can safely be assessed at least in the region, of Rs. 6,000/- per year and by adopting a multiplier of 20, the deceased would have been entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- which is more than the amount which has been claimed in the petition. Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be held that the claim of the respondents-claimants is not in any way exaggerated. The Tribunal has also erred in making deductions with respect to payments received by the respondents on accounts on account of Gratuity, Provident Fund and for lump sum payment. These deductions are no longer valid deductions in the eyes of law.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, I assess the amount payable to the respondents-claimants in the sum of Rupees one lakh. The plea of the respondent-claimants that the liability of Insurance Company, respondent No. 7 herein, is to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-with proportionate interest is upheld in the circumstances of the present case. The appellant as well as respondent No. 5 were in the employment of respondent No. 6. They are held liable for the remaining amount jointly and severally. The respondents-claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of IS per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation.
The appeal is dismissed and the cross-objections are allowed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 2,500/-.