- (1.) C. A. Rahim, J. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1st Additional District Judge), Basti on 29-1-1982 in Claim Petition No. 27 of 1980 allowing the compensation to the dependents of the victim Sher Bahadur Singh alias Vinod Kumar Singh, who died in an acci dent when they were going on a motor cycle, with Bus No. U. T. A. 9100 of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (U. P. S. R. TC. in short ). Learned Tribunal Judge allowed Rs. 63, 400 towards com pensation with 6% interest to the heirs of the deceased.
(2.) A claim petition under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act was filed by Raj Mangal Singh, father of the deceased, aged about 48 years, Smt. Karma Devi, mother of the deceased, aged about 45 years and Sri Yogendra Bahadur Singh, brother of the deceased, aged about 27 years. Their case was that the victim was going on a motor cycle alongwith the rider, a motor mechanic from Basti to Faizabad. When they reached near village Shanker-pur a night Bus No. U. T A. 9100 came from opposite direction, went to extreme right in a very high speed and dashed the motor cycle which was on the proper side, with the result that both the riders of the motor cycle died at the spot after receiving fatal injuries on their person. The motor-cycle was also badly damaged. It is alleged that the said accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Compensation to the extent of Rs. 3, 84, 000 was claimed in all for the death of the victim Sher Bahadur Singh alias Vinod Kumar Singh. The break-up is Rs. 3, 60, 000/- as general compensation using 50 as multiplier, Rs. 12, 000/- towards the cost of the motor- cycle, Rs. 2, 000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 10, 000/- for men tal shock. U. P. S. R. TC. contested the suit by filing written statement stating, inter alia, that while bus was proceeding towards Deoria, at about mid night and reached the place of the incident, two buffaloes came in front of the bus fighting, one of them dashed against the bus for which head light was broken. The driver took a turn and then the motor-cycle with two riders came on it and dashed against the bus. They died instantaneously at the spot. Then the bus dashed against a tree and stopped. It was contended that the bus was running at a normal speed and the accident caused due to fault of the motor-cyclist. Hence the claimant was not entitled to get any relief. It was also contended that the claim of the appellants was too excessive. Considering the pleading of both the parties following issues were framed: (1) Whether the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus No. U. T. A. 9100 an employee of U. P. S. R. TC. , Lucknow? (2) Whether the appellants are entitled for any amount of compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief, if any, are the applicants are entitled?
(3.) AFTER considering the evidence and materials on record it was held by the learned Tribunal Judge that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driv ing of the bus driver. It has also been held that since the deceased was not an income tax payee his income was assessed at Rs. 600/- and his expense towards his parents was Rs. 300/- per month. Using 20 as multi plier the learned Tribunal Judge assessed the general compensation of Rs. 72, 000/-, but from that amount he deducted 20% for uncertainty of life with 10% for lump sum payment. So the amount comes to Rs. 0, 400. He allowed Rs. 3. 000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10, 000/- as compensation for the damage of the motor-cycle. He also allowed 6% interest being computed from the date of filing of the petition. Being dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal Judge the claimants preferred ap peal being First Appeal from Order No. 399 of 1982 claiming compensation at an enhanced rate. The U. P. S. R. TC. has also preferred appeal against the said judgment and order of the learned Tribunal Judge, being First Appeal from Order No. 505 of 1982 on the ground that the accident was caused not due to rash and negligent act of the driver and that the amount is excessive.;