G.C.GARG, J. - (1.) DISSATISFIED with the amount of compensation awarded, Chhoti Devi and others have preferred the present appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short 'the Tribunal'). Chhoti Devi and her minor children filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- on account of death of Pehlad Singh, husband of appellant No. 1, in a motor accident. She pleaded that she is widow and other claimants are minor children of deceased Pehlad Singh who was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs. 800/- per month by doing the job of weaving. It was alleged that the accident resulting in the death of Pehlad Singh took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.
(2.) THE petition was contested by the respondents by denying the version of the accident as given by the claimants. Factum of accident was admitted. It was, however, pleaded that the accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of bus by Dharam Pal, its driver. The deceased was coming on a cycle from behind a bullock cart from the opposite side and all of a sudden he emerged by the side of the cart and having lost control of the cycle, hit the bus despite the fact that its driver in order to save the cyclist swerved towards left hand side. Relationship of the widow with the deceased as also his capacity to earn was also disputed. The Tribunal returned a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by Dharam Pal as also due to negligent driving of the cycle by Pehlad Singh deceased. As a result, both the driver of the bus and Pehlad Singh were held equally negligent for the accident. Liability of the owner of the vehicle was thus put at 50 per cent. The claimants were held to be the heirs of Pehald Singh deceased. The age of the deceased was found to be 50 years and his income was assessed at Rs. 400/- per month and by assessing the dependency of the claimants on the deceased at Rs. 300/- per month and applying a multiplier of 16, the financial loss suffered by the claimants was assessed at Rs. 57,600/-. However, having regard to the liability of the respondents, a compensation was awarded in the sum of Rs. 28,800/- and after adjustment of Rs. 15,000/- paid to the claimants on account of 'No Fault Liability' under Section 92-A of the Act, an award in the sum of Rs. 13,800/- was made leaving the respondents to be jointly and severally liable. The claimants were further held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realisation of the amount of Rs. 13,800/-.
(3.) MR . O.P. Verma, District Attorney, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the respondents tried to dislodge the findings returned by the Tribunal by contending that the accident took place not on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver but the entire fault lay with the deceased Pehlad Singh whereas the claimants in their appeal tried to shift the entire burden of rash and negligent driving on the driver of the bus. The Tribunal, as already noticed, found both of them to be negligent and, thus, apportioned the liability as 50:50.;