Arun Madan, J. - (1.) This is a misc. appeal against the award dated 30.6.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baran in Claim Case No. 78 of 1997, whereby claim was allowed for compensation for a sum of Rs. 4,59,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till payment thereof in favour of claimants, who are dependants (mother, wife, minor three sons and one daughter) of Rampal Meena who died in a motor accident, which took place on 22.4.1997 while travelling in the appellant Corporation's bus No. RJ-14/2030 from Bamla to Baran.
(2.) Heard Mr. Sudesh Bansal for Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned counsel for the appellant Corporation. The impugned award is assailed on three counts, inter alia, (1) that, the multiplier of 17 has not been correctly applied by the Tribunal in view of the fact that the age of deceased was 30 years though post-mortem report states his age as 35 years, (2) that it was a case of contributory negligence of the passenger-deceased and the conductor of the bus whereas Tribunal held the conductor negligent and liable for the death of deceased Rampal; and (3) that in the presence of evidence of Mathuralal (AW 2), who in cross-examination deposed to have supplied only 10 litres milk per day to Rampal for his use in tea-stall, Rampal could not be held to have earned Rs. 3,000 per month if other expenses like sugar, tea and incidental expenses for running tea-stall are taken into account.
(3.) After having considered the arguments canvassed by Mr. R.D. Rastogi and perused the findings recorded under the impugned award, prima facie, I am of the view that none of the contentions of the appellant hold any merit to admit this appeal because the case of contributory negligence was neither pleaded nor proved on record by the appellant Corporation before the Tribunal and moreover, death of Rampal stands proved from the evidence on record that since bus gate lock being defective and it having not been properly locked, Rampal who was made to stand at one of steps of the staircase to the bus exit door, had fallen down on the road as the bus was being driven so rashly that its driver could not stop immediately which resulted in causing death of Rampal. It was prime duty of the driver and conductor to lock the exit gate either before giving whistle to move or during operation/driving of the vehicle and having failed to do so, the bus owner and the servants employed to operate it, are certainly liable for the accident having taken place as a result of the defect in the bus body or its gate or gate lock. Having failed to do so, as proved on record, the Tribunal was right in holding the driver, conductor and bus owner, viz., appellant Corporation liable jointly and severally for the death of Rampal in the accident in question.;