K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THERE is no representation for the appellant. I, however, examined the case and I am of the view that the compensation assessed already is required to be revised. The case was filed at the instance of the widow of Joginder Singh, who admittedly, had been travelling in the first respondent's auto rickshaw when the accident had taken place on 29.12.1994. As per the appellant's version, the deceased was travelling along with his brother and the vehicle was driven by the auto rickshaw driver in a rash and negligent manner. The driver had attempted to save the vehicle from being hit against a cow that was crossing the road and had capsized resulting in very serious injuries to the passengers in the auto rickshaw. It was in evidence that the appellant's husband had fracture in both his legs, shoulder and jaw and he remained in hospital for 6 -7 months. He ultimately died. The Tribunal found that the accident was inevitable and awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - on no fault basis under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(2.) I find the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal to be erroneous. An auto rickshaw that capsizes in the attempt of the driver to save a cow crossing the road cannot put his own passengers at greater peril than the safety that he minds for a cow. This is not to say that he can be rash to kill crossing animals but he ought to give equal application of care in his driving that does not result in the vehicle turning turtle and exposing the passengers to serious injuries. The Tribunal while awarding a compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - did not say that the death was not on account of accident. On the other hand, it has held that negligence had not been established. I reverse the finding and hold the driver to be wholly responsible for the accident and the same would not have arisen if he had been careful in his driving. The deceased was said to be an ex -serviceman. It was in evidence that he had 3 acres of land. I have assumed that the supervisory skills that might be necessary for managing agricultural fields could be assessed at Rs. 3,000/ - per month and the compensation assessed on that basis. I would take 1/3rd deduction to be applied for personal consumption and take the contribution to the wife at Rs. 24,000/ - per year and apply a multiplier of 10 providing for loss of dependency at Rs. 2,40,000/ -. I will make a further provision of increase for loss of consortium to the wife and for loss of love and affection to the children at Rs. 10,000/ -, funeral expenses at Rs. 5,000/ - and loss to estate at Rs. 5,000/ -, making in all a total sum of Rs. 2,60,000/ -. The sum determined in excess of what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The appellant will be entitled to whole of the money and the same shall be released without having to retain in the deposit, in view of the fact that the accident had taken place from 15 years prior to the date of disposal. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. The registry shall despatch a copy of the order to the party since there is no representation on behalf of the appellant before this Court.;