N.L.GANGULI,J. - (1.) THIS First Appeal from Order is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 22nd March 1980. Certain facts about the accident are admitted. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Bus No. UTY 2513 was plying between Jaunpur - Mariahun Pitch Road on 25th January 1978, in the morning hours. One Car bearing No. WMB 1193 was coming from the opposite direction. At the early hours between 6.30 to 7 A.M., it is said that it was a foggy and the visibility was poor at that time. The car was occupied by Ram Chandra Singh, Panna Lal, Algoo and Baijnath. There was an accident between the said Bus and the Car. The four occupants aforementioned died on the spot on account of the accident. It is said that the Bus Driver was driving the Bus at a very high speed and on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus, the accident took place.
(2.) THE widow and 7 children of deceased Ram Chandra Singh filed Claim petition No. 3 of 1978 before the Claims Tribunal. At the time of the death Ram Chandra Singh was aged about 42 years. According to the finding of Tribunal, the monthly income of deceased Ram Chandra Singh, out of cultivation was about Rs. 500/- per month, although in the Claim petition, the claimants had stated that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1500/ per month. A written statement was filed by the Corporation and it was stated that the visibility at the time of accident was very poor on account of thick fog. The Bus driver, who was driving the Bus slowly with a speed of 45 K.M., which was not high, as the permissible speed, is 60 K.M. per hours. On the contrary, it was pleaded that the Car driver was driving the Car at a very high speed of about 70 K.M. per hour. The car driver was himself negligent. The case of the Corporation was that at the time of accident, a Bullock-cart came in between and the car driver himself on account of rash and negligent driving dashed against the Bus. There was no negligent or rash driving on the part of the appellant's driver. The claimants examined P.W. 1 Mohan Lal and P.W. 2 Ram Saran Gaur. These two witnesses categorically stated that the speed of the Bus was very high and in order to take over a Bullock-cart, the Bus driver speeded up his speed resulting into the accident. It was admitted in their statement that visibility at the time of the accident was poor. The Corporation in support of their defence examined D.W. 1 Uma Shanker, driver of the Bus and D.W. 2 Ram Chandra Sinha, a passenger in the Bus. These two witnesses stated that the speed of the Bus was about 18 to 20 K.M. and there was no Bullock-cart on the way. There was no attempt on the part of the driver to take over the Bullock-cart causing the accident. The second witness of the Corporation also corroborated the statement of the driver. The statement of the witnesses Mohan Lal (P.W. 1) and Ram Saran Gaur (P.W. 2) was assailed on the ground that Mohan Lal was not named in the first information report and Ram Saran Gaur was not examined as witness in the criminal case against the driver. After examining the evidence of the parties the Tribunal believed the version of the claimants witnesses and Tribunal and the claimants and recorded a finding to the effect that the Bus was driver at a high speed rashly and negligently. The Tribunal thus after recording finding about the negligence of the Bus driver, proceeded to award compensation and awarded Rs. 23,000/- in all, plus 12 per cent interest to the claimants. The Tribunal found the age of the deceased at the time of the accident about 42 years. It also found that the monthly amount spent over the family after deducting personal expenses was about Rs. 500/- per month. After scanning the evidence, the Tribunal found that the longevity in the family of the deceased was about 65 years, since the deceased at the time of the accident was about 42 years, which was estimated that he was likely to live further 23 years. The amount of compensation was calculated on the annual income of Rs. 6,000/- and 2/3rd out of it was available to the family. Thus the availability of the amount to the dependents was calculated at Rs. 4000/- per year. The finding about the annual income was Rs. 1500/- per year through agriculture after deducting expenses and on account of the death, while estimating the loss Rs. 1500/- is to be deduced out of Rs. 4,000/ Thus, loss was estimated to be Rs. 1500/- per annum. Thus loss of Rs. 1500/- per annum multiplied by 25, the total amount calculated was Rs. 34,500/-. Out of the said of Rs. 34,500/- 1/3rd of it was deducted on account of uncertainty of life and after the deduction of the said 1/3rd amount, the total arrived at is Rs. 23,000/- awardable to the claimants besides 12percentinterestper annum. Learned Counsel for the Corporation argued the case at length and submitted that the findings recorded about the rash and negligent driving of the Bus was erroneous and the findings recorded by the Tribunal was liable to be quashed. He placed the evidence of the witnesses examined before the Tribunal and after examining the evidence of the witnesses we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was fully justified in believing the statement of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants. The finding about the longevity and the annual income of the deceased, as recorded, is supported by the evidence on the record and after scanning the evidence, we find no error in the same. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that since after the death of the deceased his son was took over the cultivation of deceased and the financial loss has been compensated and no farther award of compensation was justified. We do not accept the suggestion, The deceased was hail and hearty and was about 42 years of age. He lived, the son had all opportunities of doing some other job and supplement the income of the family. Merely because the son took over the occupation of deceased father, would not disentitle the claimants of the reasonable compensation awarded by the Tribunal. We do not find any error of law, jurisdiction of any such illegality in the findings, which may call any interference in this appeal.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had awarded excessive interest of 12 percent per annum. He submitted that in those days the interest rate ranged to 6 percent and not 12 percent. He cited A.I.R. 1953 Alld. Page 15 and another case in the same report at page 159 and one case of Supreme Court where in it was shown that only 6 percent interest was awarded to the claimants on the amount of compensation. The award of interest on the amount of compensation is not based on any strict guideline and it depends on facts and circumstances of each case. At the time of the filing of the appeal the Court was pleased to pass interim order staying the execution of the judgment and order provided Rs. 12,000/- was deposited in pursuance of the interim order. It is stated that the said amount of Rs. 12,000/- was deposited in the court below and that amount is likely to have been paid to the claimants. Still the balance of Rs. 11,000/- is payable. The piecemeal payment of the compensation minimizes the utility of the Compensation paid to the claimants. The interest awarded at the rate of 12percent is neither excessive nor exorbitant. We consider that the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant for reducing the interest cannot be accepted. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the First Appeal from Order is liable to fail and is dismissed. No order as to costs.;