K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE appeal is against the dismissal of the petition claiming for compensation for death of a male aged 19 to 20 in a motor accident that had taken place on 17.9.1992. The accident was said to have taken place at the time when the deceased was travelling on a bicycle and the military truck owned by the Union and driven by the second respondent was attempting to overtake the bus and dashed against the cyclist coming from the opposite direction. The incident was spoken to by one Madan Lal as an eye witness. Incidentally he was also the author of the FIR which was registered on the same day and he had made specific reference to the involvement of the military truck.
(2.) THE accident was denied by the second respondent who has driven the truck at the relevant time. His version was that he was not actually the driver but he was however driving the truck at the relevant time since the driver assigned to the vehicle had taken ill. He noticed that there was yet another bus coming from the opposite direction that dashed against the cyclist and he in, order to save a further collision, pulled the vehicle to the extreme right. His contention was that there was no collision with this truck but the collision had been caused by the another bus which had sped. The second respondent was unable to however give any information regarding the details of the other bus against the cyclist. Between an assertion made by a witness who had lodged the FIR making a specific imputation of the second respondent as a person who had caused the accident and the evidence of the second respondent himself, the tribunal made a sweeping observation that the colonel's evidence was more credible than the eye witness account. The tribunal also observed that there was said to be yet another eye witness and the said eye witness was not examined. I discard the reasoning of the tribunal as not objective and it allowed itself to be swayed by a colonel's account without minding the fact that the colonel did not give any detail of the other bus which was said to have caused the accident. The first account registered by the eye witness in the FIR ought to have been sufficient to discredit the denial of involvement of the vehicle by the second respondent. Between the two versions I would go with the version that would support what was already stated in the FIR. It has also noticed that the colonel himself was not under the normal circumstances expected to drive the vehicle when there was yet another driver. He had atleast therefore a reason to conceal the truth and disown a liability which would have otherwise be fastened on the basis of his act. I set aside the finding of the tribunal and hold the involvement of the first respondent vehicle as established and the death was a result of only the negligent driving of the second respondent.
(3.) THE deceased was a carpenter and considering the fact that it was a case of the year 1992 I will take the expectations of the parents as contributed to the family at not less than Rs. 1000/ - per month and apply a multiplier of 18 and take the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,16,000/ - provide for Rs. 50,000/ - for loss of love and affection and add up the conventional heads like funeral expenses and loss to estate by another sum of Rs. 9,000/ - and assess the compensation payable at Rs. 2,75,000/ -. The amount granted shall attract interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be on the Union being the owner of the military truck.;