Judgment:
Tatia, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The appellant has preferred the appeal challenging the award dated 31st May, 1996 passed in Motor Accidents Claims Case No. 20/90. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased Tulcha Ram himself was responsible for the accident and, therefore, no amount can be awarded to the legal representatives of Tulcha Ram. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased and, therefore, the tribunal has committed illegality in awarding the compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/- against the appellant. It is also submitted that the tribunal has committed illegality in applying the multiplier of 25 while calculating the amount of compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent-claimants have submitted the cross-objection as the compensation awarded is too low. It is submitted that the deceased was of the age of 28 years only and he was having the monthly income of Rs. 2,000/- per month, this income was proved by the claimant's witness AW-1 Santri Devi widow of late Sh. Tulcha ram and there is no rebuttal of this evidence of Santri Devi with respect to the income of the deceased. It is also submitted that the tribunal committed serious illegality in not awarding compensation by taking into account the future prospects of the income of the deceased. Therefore, even if the multiplier is reduced even then the damages awarded to the claimants are too low.
4. I perused the record and after considering the arguments of both the parties I am of the firm view that the tribunal has rightly decided the issue No. I in favour of the claimants against the appellant. It is relevant to mention here that the six claim petitions were filed due to this accident dated 14th Sept., 1998 by the appellant's bus No. RSB 940. Learned counsel for the appellant is not in position to state whether the finding on issue No. 1 recorded in the impugned judgment has been challenged by the appellant by preferring appeal in all other cases whereas learned counsel for the claimant stated that as per his knowledge no appeal has been filed by the appellant to challenge the finding on issue No. 1. Be that as it may, the fact remain is that, presently this court is called upon to examined the issue No. 1.1 perused the statement of the witnesses, who very categorically stated that the driver of the bus was driving the bus rashly and negligently. It is also stated that Tulcha Ram tried to save the accident by keeping his Jeep in the side of the road, but the bus driver could not control his bus because of the fact that he was driving the bus very rashly and with fast speed. The appellant produced witness NAW Shiv Nath, he stated that he was employee of the appellant and was posted at Hangumangarh depot but on 14th Sept. 1988 he was travelling in the bus for his personal work. He stated that it was the negligence of the Jeep driver and, therefore, the accident occurred. But in view of the statement of the witnesses of the claimants, which are more trust worthy, the statement of the witness of the appellant cannot be accepted. The NAW-1 stated that Jeep came in front of the bus from 2 km distance, he also stated that while giving side to the bus, the Jeep driver again came on the road and, therefore, this accident occurred. This fact also nowhere supports that the bus driver was having full control over the bus when there were other bus and Jeep on the road, i do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the tribunal.
5. So far as quantum awarded in concerned, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 12,50/- per months on the ground that this can be a proper way of assessment taking into account the daily wages applicable at the relevant lime whereas there is a direct evidence of Smt. Santri Devi Wd/o late Sh. Tulcha Ram that deceased was getting income of Rs. 2000/- per month. It is stated that the deceased was driving the Jeep and he was having his own Jeep, therefore, he was getting the income of Rs. 2000/- per month. It is also clear fro the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant before the tribunal that the deceased Tulcha Ram was not proved to be an owner of the Jeep and he can be treated as driver of the jeep only and it is also submitted before the tribunal that wages of the driver prevailing at that time was Rs. 50/- per day and the drivers were not getting the work for 30 days in a months. In view of the totality of the fact when the tribunal has accepted Rs. 50/- per day on the basis of the statement of learned counsel for the appellant, it cannot be said that the tribunal has committed any mistake. So far as grievance of the appellant is concerned, is having no foundation. Now question arises whether the amount assessed by the tribunal is appropriate or not or it is low in view of the facts of the case for which again it can be said that the claimant stated on oath that the deceased was getting income of Rs. 2000/-per month. It is also clear from the award itself that the tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the income of the deceased. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the claimant that even in case of non-earning member, now there is a deeming clause to deem income of Rs. 1500/- per month. Therefore, at any cost, the income of the deceased cannot be assessed less than Rs. 1500/- per month and it requires to be added in the amount of the future prospects as done by the Hon'ble Apex Court and is being done in the matter of the assessment of the claimants by the tribunal.
6. I find some force in the submission of learned counsel for the claimant and the income of the deceased is assessed to be Rs. 1500/- per month. 50% of this amount Rs. 750/- can be added on account of future prospects of earning of the deceased. Deduction of Amount, 1/3 of the amount is required to be deducted on account of the expenses, which were likely to be incurred by the deceased for himself, then the net result remains is that the assessable income for awarding damage to the claimant goes to Rs. 1,500/- per month. The multiplier of 25 is on higher side and it deserves to be reduced by applying multiplier of 18. The reasonable amount of compensation will be Rs. 3,24,000/-. The claimants are entitled for above amount of Rs. 3,24,000/- in addition to the amount awarded to the claimants on other count.
7. The appeal of the appellant is dismissed. The cross-objection of the respondent is allowed as mentioned above. The claimants shall also be entitled interest @ 9% per annum from today on the enhanced amount. Rest of the award is kept as it is.