V.M.Sahai & Sabhajeet Yadav, JJ. - (1.) This first appeal from order has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 17.4.1992 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahr in M.A.C. Case No. 149 of 1988, Rajani v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, whereby the claim petition was allowed and a sum of Rs. 2,97,100 was awarded as compensation along with 6 per cent simple annual interest thereon from the date of filing claim petition to the date of actual payment. While awarding said compensation, although opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 (before Tribunal) were held liable for payment of compensation to the claimants to the extent of 50 per cent each and were held jointly and severally liable for payment of aforesaid compensation, but it was further held that the claimants shall be entitled to recover the said amount of compensation either jointly from opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 before Tribunal, i.e., U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and owner of the car or severally from any one of them, hence this appeal by U.P.S.R.T.C.
(2.) The facts leading to the case in brief are that the deceased Surendra Kumar Garg was travelling in car No. DBA 1695, from Aligarh to Delhi on 22.9.1988 and when car reached Sikandrabad Road, Bulandshahr District at about 9 a.m., a bus No. UGU 7164, which was coming from Sikandrabad, dashed against the car due to which Surendra Kumar Garg received serious injuries and died before reaching hospital. The widow of the deceased Rajani, his son Nitin Garg and daughter Neha Garg filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahr claiming compensation of Rs. 17,24,000. The claim petition was not contested by Sarvjit Singh, the owner of the car No. DBA 1695 despite having being impleaded as party in the claim petition. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation filed a written statement that the car had overtaken Tempo wrongly due to which the driver of the car lost his balance and the accident took place. The driver of the car had hit the bus while it was standing. On the pleadings of the parties the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed various issues. One of the issues before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was as to whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The finding has been recorded that there was contributory negligence of both drivers, of car No. DBA 1695 and bus No. UGU 7164 belonging to U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, therefore, they were held liable to the damage caused to the extent of 50 per cent each. On the question of quantum of compensation the Tribunal had recorded finding that at the time of accident deceased Surendra Kumar Garg was aged 31 years 5 months. In the post-mortem report the age of deceased was shown as 30 years. Deceased was working in Bakhtawar Singh Bal Kishan & Co. as Accounts Officer and his monthly salary was Rs. 3,230, which was proved by the widow of the deceased. After deducting 1/3rd expenses of the deceased himself, the Tribunal has found the dependency to be Rs. 2,150 per month. The Claims Tribunal had applied a multiplier of 15 and found that the amount of compensation to which claimants were entitled was Rs. 3,87,000. Thereafter 20 per cent deduction was made towards the uncertainties of life and Tribunal has held that the total compensation payable to the claimants-respondents was Rs. 3,09,600 and Rs.12,500 had already been paid to the claimants-respondents under section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, total amount payable to the claimants-respondents was Rs. 2,97,100. It appears that claimants were satisfied with the quantum of compensation, therefore, they did not prefer any appeal for enhancement of such compensation.
(3.) We have heard Mr. Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. C.S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for claimants-respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Respondent No. 4 is pro forma respondent. Mr. C.B. Yadav appearing for respondent No. 5 did not appear though his name was printed in cause list and case was taken in revised list.;