O.P.BISHNOI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed on behalf of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, feeling aggrieved by an Award dated 26.3.2002, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that on 9.8.1999, the deceased Pemaram, while on his two -wheeler, met with an accident on Osian to Jodhpur road and was fatally injured. The respondent No. 8 - -Shanker Lal is said to be the Driver of the bus No. RJ -19 P -4102 belonging to the appellant and, consequently, a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed against the appellants and the respondent No. 8, Shanker Lal, with the allegation that Shanker Lal was responsible for causing the accident, on account of his rash and negligent driving of the bus. Respondent No. 1 - -Smt. Kamla is the widow of the deceased and respondents No. 2 to 5 are their minor kids. Respondent No. 6 Rugaram is the father and respondent No. 7 - -Smt. Kanu is the mother of the deceased. The deceased was aged 37 years and according to the claim petition, his monthly salary was Rs. 6,028/ -. According to the claim petition, he was to superannuate at the age of 58 years and was thus, to serve 21 years more and, consequently, the loss of income was stated to be Rs. 15,19,956/ - For the mental agony, Rs. 1,00,000/ - were claimed. Rs. 20,000/ - were claimed as expenses on last rites and Rs. 2,000/ - were claimed as transportation charges of the dead -body. Rs. 50,000/ - were claimed as loss of wearing apparel of the deceased. Further, it was stated that after superannuation, he would be teaching privately and, consequently, a claim for Rs. 2,88,000/ - was made on that account. In all, Rs. 20,42,056/ - were claimed as damages. The appellants, in their joint reply, denied that the driver of the bus was rash or negligent. It was contended that the deceased himself was driving his two -wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and thus, collided with the bus belonging to the appellant, necessary issues were framed. The claimant - -Smt. Kamla examined herself as PW 1, and PW 2 - -Peera Ram was examined as an eye -witness. In rebuttal, the driver Shankier Lal (D.W. 1) was examined by the respondents. Arguments were heard and the Award was passed on 26.3.2002. It was found by the learned Tribunal that the bus driver - -Shanker Lal was solely responsible for the accident and it was not accepted that the deceased himself contributed towards the accident. The monthly salary as per the certificate (Ex. 6) was found to be Rs. 5,403/ - and looking to the fact that the deceased was aged 37 years and was to serve 21 years more, a multiplier of 18 was applied. After deducting 1/3rd salary as personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal found that the claimants have suffered a loss of Rs. 7,78,032/ -, on account of loss of income. Each claimant was awarded Rs. 10,000/ - in lieu of losing the deceased and his affection, Rs. 15,000/ - were awarded as expenses of the last rites and Rs. 2,000/ - were awarded on account of transportation charges. Further, Rs. 2500/ - were awarded on account of the damage caused to the two -wheeler. In all, the award was passed for Rs. 8,67,532/ -. The learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that it was the deceased who was guilty in causing the accident and the learned Tribunal fell into error in not believing the testimony of the driver Shanker Lal. I find that the contention is without any substance. As pointed out earlier, PW -2 Peera Ram was examined as an eye -witness by the claimants. His deposition is to the effect that he was travelling, as a passenger, in the bus and it was the bus driver who was rash and negligent in driving the bus and was solely responsible for the accident. The witness has denied that the deceased was driving the two -wheeler rashly or negligently. Against this testimony, there was the testimony of the bus driver Shanker Lal, who denied that the two vehicles collided. According to Shanker Lal, the bus never collided with the two -wheeler and after the bus was stopped, the two -wheeler and the two passengers came and fell before the bus without touching it. The testimony of the driver naturally did not inspire much confidence. The police, after due investigation, found him answerable and a challan under Sections 279 and 304 -A of the IPC was filed against Shanker Lal. According to Shanker Lal, two persons were riding the Motor Cycle. However, the reply of the appellants does not say that there were two persons on the Motor Cycle. Needless to say that Shankerlal's testimony does not inspire much confidence and there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Peera Ram, whose testimony stands corroborated by the police investigation as well.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has then argued that the deceased was aged 37 years and it was not proper to apply the multiplier of 18 in the case. I find that the deceased was aged 37 years and was to serve 21 years more before superannuation and in the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the amount of the award is on the higher side. The deceased was a Government servant and there was every possibility that he would be promoted from time to time and consequently, his salary would be enhanced in the next 21 years. In these circumstances, application of multiplier of 18 by the Tribunal cannot be termed as extra liberal. In the case of Jyoti Kaul v. State of Madhya Pradesh, : (2002)6SCC306 , the deceased was a Goernment servant and was aged 50 years. In this way, he was left with 8 years service before his superannuation and the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15. On an appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh, the High Court, looking to the age of the deceased, reduced the multiplier from 15 to 10. The claimants preferred an S.L.P. to the Supreme Court and the Apex Court restored the multiplier of 15 which was applied by the Tribunal. Needless to say that in the case of Jyoti Kaul, the deceased was to retire within 8 years the date of the accident. He was survived by the widow and two kids. In the instant case the deceased was left with 21 years of service as he was aged 37 years only and was survived by the widow, three sons, one daughter and two parents. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the amount awarded is on higher side.;