G.C.Mital, J. - (1.) Bus No PNT5985, owned by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, was being driven by Darshan Singh driver on 2nd of July, 1971, from Patiala to Chandigarh At about 4-30 P. M., within the municipal limits of Rajpura town, while the bus was running at a fast speed, it struck against a rickshaw coming from the opposite direction. The rickshaw was being driven by Ravel Singh on his correct side, in which he was carrying three ladies and a child. After striking the rickshaw, the bus struck against an electric pole and came to halt. Only the child survived and all others died as a result of the injuries caused due to the accident. In this appeal, we are only concerned with the claim for compensation made by the widow and three minor children of Ravel Singh rickshaw-puller.
(2.) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), by judgment dated 2lst of August, 1974, found that Ravel Singh was 35 years of age and could live for another 35 years as the span of life now-adays was 70 years. It was also found that as a rickshaw-puller be was earning enough to contribute at last Rs. 1,000/- per annum to his family and on this basis the Tribunal arrived at a figure of Rs. 35,000/- which his family suffered on account of his death. Since he was carrying more than two passengers in his rickshaw, the Tribunal was of the opinion that for this illegal act on his part, a deduction of 25% from the total compensation was justified although a definite finding was given that Ravel Singh was not guilty of contributory negligence. In this way a total compensation of Rs. 26,250/- was awarded to the widow and three minor children. Against the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation filed an appeal in this Court and a learned single Judge on appraisal of evidence, came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was guilty of negligence and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the rickshaw-puller: It was also found that the mere fall that the rickshaw-puller contravened some by laws of the municipal committee in allowing more than two passengers to sit in his rickshaw did not justify in lacy the making of 25% deduction as was done by the Tribunal when he was not guilty of any contributory negligence. As regards the award of the compensation it was held that Ravel Singh was contributing Rs. 100/- per mensem to his family and this much of amount could be provided to the claimants by award of lump sum compensation of Rs. 12,000/-. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that by prudent investment in some scheduled bank Rs. 100/- per mensem should be earned as interest on the aforesaid lamp sum amount and on this basis allowed Rs. 12,000/- for restoring the pecuniary benefit to the deceased's wife and three minor children. Besides the above, Rs 2,000/- were allowed on account of pain and agony suffered by the claimants due to death of Ravel Singh. In this manner, a total sum of Rs. 14,000/- was awarded to the heirs of Ravel Singh. Feeling dissatisfied with the decision of the learned single Judge, the heirs of Ravel Singh have come up in appeal under clause X of the Letters patent.
(3.) The learned counsel for the claimants has urged that the view of the learned single Judge is contrary to the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, 1979-81 Punj LR 1. While highlighting the argument, it is urged that although nothing could be allowed for pain and agony the method of lamp sum payment and deduction from compensation on that account is wholly opposed to the aforesaid Full Bench decision.;