I.S. Israni, J. - (1.) THIS is a S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated June 13,1984, given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in claim No. 280 of 1977. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on July 10, 1977, at about 2.30 p.m. an accident took place on Bagru -Ajmer road in which deceased Surgyan Singh died. It is stated that deceased Surgyan Singh was driving a taxi towards Ajmer in which one passenger was also silting and he was driving the taxi on its left side. A bus bearing No. RSM 5865 came from the opposite direction at a very fast speed which was being driven rashly and negligently and came in wrong direction and struck the car driven by deceased Surgyan Singh as a result of which Surgyan Singh as well as the passenger travelling in the taxi died on the spot. It has been stated that deceased Surgyan Singh was 31 years old and was drawing salary of Rs. 500/ - p.m. The claimants claimed on various counts Rs. 1,50,000/ -. The claim was filed by Supyar Kanwar widow of deceased Surgyan Singh and his minor son Amar Singh aged about 9 months. The Appellant in their reply to the above claim, while admitting the accident, denied that the bus was being driven at a fast speed and rashly and negligently and have stated that the bus was driven at a very slow speed. It has also been stated that the driver of the car was drunk and was driving his car carelessly and struck a truck on the wrong side. It has also been stated that in front of the bus there was a truck and after overtaking the truck as the bus drove further at that time the car came in front and struck the bus in wrong side. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether Devinarain, the driver of the bus No. RSM 5865 was driving the bus on 10.7.77 while coming from Ajmer at a fast speed and rashly and negligently as a result of which accident took place with the taxi car bearing No. RST 28 which resulted in the death of deceased Surgyan Singh, driver of the taxi and the passenger travelling in the same? (2) Whether the Petitioners were entitled to the compensation claimed in the claim petition; if yes, how much and from whom? (2A) Whether deceased Surgyan Singh driver of the taxi No. RST 28 was under the influence of liquor at the time of driving the same carelessly as a result of which the accident took place? (3) Relief?
(2.) ON the issue Nos. (1) and (2A), the claimants have examined AW 5 Budh Singh who is an eye -witness and was travelling in the bus at the time of accident. He has stated in his statement that the car was coming from the opposite direction on its proper side and was being driven at the normal speed and at that time the bus was driven at the high speed from 70 to 75 km. per hour and the bus struck against the car on wrong side. Even though Budh Singh is a friend of Anoop Singh who is the owner of taxi but this is no reason to disbelieve his statement. Budh Singh has withstood the cross -examination quite well and there is no reason to disbelieve his statement. He has also stated that at the time of accident the back wheel of the car was in kacha. This clearly shows that the car was being driven on its left side and the bus struck with the car on wrong side. It is also notable that the F.I.R. Exh. 1 which was lodged by a police employee who was travelling in the bus also makes it clear that the bus was driven at fast speed and the car was coming in its proper direction. This F.I.R. has been proved by a witness Kanhaiyalal. Therefore, the version of the accident mentioned in the F.I.R. by a disinterested person has been confirmed by AW 5 Budh Singh. NAW 1 Devinarain, the driver of the bus, in his statement has said that he saw a car driven in improper side and felt as if some new person was learning driving on the same. He also stated that he saw a 2 1/2 years old child on the road whom the car driver saved with difficulty. Thereafter, the car stopped in kacha and then suddenly started at a very fast speed. Therefore, he stopped his bus and the car came and struck with his bus in the standing position. He also said that the persons in the car were smelling of liquor. In his cross -examination he says that the car was earlier in a wrong side and all of a sudden it came to the proper side and for saving the car he had to go on to the wrong side. This statement goes directly against what has been mentioned in the reply filed by the Appellant Corporation in which there is no mention of stopping of the bus nor that of the child having been seen on the road. It is also strange that the bus went to wrong side to save the car which was driven on its proper side. The allegation that the driver and the passenger in the car were smelling of liquor is also untrustworthy in face of the postmortem report Exh. 4. The statement of NAW 3 Sita Ram who was the conductor of the bus at the time of accident gives no support to the case of the Respondent and he states that the road was 22' wide and inspite of such a wide road the bus struck the car on wrong side. This clearly shows that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. NAW 2 Hanuman who is said to be one of the persons who were at the site, does not know that there was a police employee travelling in the bus which shows that this witness was perhaps not present on the site at the time of accident. From the statement of NAW 4 Gopi Ram it is clear that he saw the accident after the bus had struck the car and therefore he is a person who has not seen anything earlier than the accident. Learned Tribunal has also discussed the evidence in details. I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. Regarding the amount of compensation the Respondents have also filed cross -objections in which it has been stated that the claimants should have been awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/ - as claimed in the claim petition with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation and that the costs under Section 110 -CCC should have been allowed to the claimants. It has been stated that the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/ - awarded to the wife as consortium was too meagre. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has stated that the accident took place in any case on account of rash and negligent driving of the car driver and he was also responsible for contributory negligence and therefore half of the amount of compensation arrived at by the learned Tribunal should have been awarded to the claimants. On going through the reply filed by the Appellant before the Tribunal it is clear that the plea of contributory negligence has not been taken before the Tribunal in the reply and it has been clearly stated that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car driver alone. Therefore, when the plea of contributory negligence was not raised in the reply nor any evidence was led on this point, the Appellant cannot be allowed to raise this plea in the appeal for the first time as no foundation for the same has been made in the proceedings before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued that trend of the various High Courts in the matter of compensation was to apply multiplier around 16 years and that reduction of atleast 25% of the award given in the lump sum should have also been made by the Tribunal. He has vehemently opposed the multiplier of 29 years applied by the learned Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has stated that even though he stresses that the deceased was earning Rs. 300/ - p.m., apart from the salary he was also getting Rs. 10/ - per day when he used to go out of Jaipur with taxi and even if the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 300/ - p.m. the learned Tribunal should not have taken that the deceased spent only Rs. 200/ - p.m. on his family but should have assessed that he was spending Rs. 250/ - p.m. on his wife and small child. It may be stated that at the time of accident the age of Supyar Kanwar was 26 years and the age of the deceased was 31 years. The general trend of various High Courts is that average age of a person in India is taken to be between 65 to 70 years. The learned Tribunal taking the average age of deceased from the earning point of view to be 60 and adopting Rs. 200/ - p.m. as the amount which the deceased was spending on his family, has awarded Rs. 125/ - p.m. to Supyar Kanwar and Rs. 75/ - to the child. An amount of Rs. 5,000/ - has also been awarded as consortium to Supyar Kanwar. It may be stated that the awarding of compensation is a sort of social legislation which redresses the grievance of the claimants in the shape of compensation. In fact there can be no compensation for the loss of a family member more so the bread -earner of the family but in any case it is desirable to award compensation to the dependents who have to face this world throughout their life. In this case, the widow of the deceased is a young lady of 26 years who has to look after her small child who lost his father at the age of 9 months. It is also a fact that the value of money is fast reducing and the estimate is that Re. 1/ - is equal to about 20 p. at the present time. The trend also shows that the value of rupee may further come down in future also. This Court has not fixed any particular multiplier and the multiplier depends and changes according to the facts and circumstances of each case keeping in view the need and equitable compensation to be awarded to the claimants. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Pista Agrawal, 1986 ACJ 23 (Raj), my brother Lodha, J. has also opined that there can be no hard and fast rule regarding the application of a particular multiplier and has also discussed several rulings of various High Courts on this point. I am in respectful agreement with this view and hold that the learned Tribunal has committed no error in applying multiplier of 29 years for compensation to be awarded to the young widow of the deceased, who has to live her full life. Learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 19 years in case of the minor son which is also appropriate because by that date the son will become major and will be able to look after himself. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has stressed that the compensation amount should not be turned as a windfall of fortune to the claimants and that principle of deduction of 25% should be applied because the amount is paid in lump sum. The trend of the rulings of various High Courts clearly show that the deduction on account of lump sum is not favoured keeping in view the falling value of the money in our country. I am fortified in this by cases, New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Lakhibai, 1985 ACJ 138 (MP), Satyawati Pathak v. Hari Ram, 1983 ACJ 424 (Del) Srisailam Devastanam v. Bhawani Pramilamma, 1983 ACJ 580 (AP). The view of this Court is also the same as it is evident from Prem Chand v. Jasoda, 1985 ACJ 315 (Raj) and Inderlal v. Narendra Kumar, 1985 ACJ 303 (Raj). The compensation amounting to Rs. 48,500/ - awarded to the young widow of the deceased can in no way be termed as windfall of fortune keeping in view the facts and circumstances already discussed above. I think the widow deserves at least this much amount to be able to look after herself and her minor son.
(3.) IN view of the above, this appeal and cross -objections have no force and are hereby dismissed.;