J.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a misc. appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act arising out of a claim for compensation made before the Moto. Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur.
(2.) A sum of Rs. 17 05,000/ - was claimed as compensation for a fatal accident before the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,17,600/ - as compensation to the claimants and rejected the claim for the remaining amount. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the RSRTC) against which the award had been made preferred an appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein the claimants filed cross -objection The learned Single Judge partly allowed the appeal filed by the RSRTC and reduced the amount of compensation payable to the claimants to Rs. 3,20,000/ - only and the cross -objection of the claimants was dismissed. The learned Single Judge awarded interest on the amount of compensation only at 6% p a. and time too from the date of award until payment. The RSRTC felt aggrieved even after this reduction in the amount of compensation made by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, it preferred the present appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. The claimants have filed a cross objection for restoration of the Tribunal's award. The result is that the RSRTC in its appeal claims further reduction in the amount of compensation while the claimants in their cross -objection pray for restoration of the Tribunal's award granting Rs. 6,17,600/ - as compensation in addition to the interest payable thereon. We shall now refer to the material facts. The fatal motor accident occurred at about 8.30 P.M. on January 29, 1979 on the Banswara -Partapur road near village Talwara in which RSRTC bus No. RRM 3885 driven by Hariram, NAW 2 dashed against a jeep bearing No RJY 3891 coming from the opposite direction. Deceased Prakash Chandra who was sitting in the jeep in the front by the side of the driver of the jeep died ON the spot as a result of injuries sustained by him in the accident. The bus driver did not even stop and get down from the bus to see the consequence of the accident and he did not even care to report the accident at any police station The report of the accident was bow ever, made at a police station at the behest of occupants of the jeep giving particulars of the bus which caused the accident. The driver Hariram NAW 2 admits going to the police station only the next morning when he came to know that the report had already been lodged of that accident. The driver Hariram further admitted that the accident occurred near a curve on the road and the speed of his bus at that, time was 30 -40 Kms. per hour. No doubt the bur driver does not accepted his fault but he has admitted in his statement the above facts which together with the undisputed facts and circumstances of the case leave no doubt that the bus driver Hariram was lash and negligent in driving the bus as shown by us later.
(3.) THE deceased Prakash Chandra was aged about 32 years when he was killed in the motor accident survived by his widow Smt. Manorma, then aged about 24 years, and a I minor daughter then aged about 7 years. The deceased came from an apparently affluent family, his father having retired as Additional Commissioner from Government service in Rajasthan. The deceased was engaged in agency business which he was carrying on as the working partner of a partnership firm in which his father was the other partner. The father of the deceased Maganlal, AW 4, was aged 74 years at that time. He has proved that deceased was doing the entire work of the firm in which they two were the only partners with equal shares and the agency work was of well known concerns namely. Sriram Fertilizers, Sriram ChemiCals, Kirloskar, Dunlop, Godrej, American Spring and Pressing Works and N.B.C. etc. He further stated that after the death of his son Prakash Chandra he alone was left to look after the work which was apparently beyond his capacity at that age. We are informed that Miganlal, father of the deceased, has since then died. It is significant that there is no cross examination of this witness on any of the matters deposed by him and the only thing asked in cross -examination relates to ownership of the share of deceased Prakash Chandra which has gone to his widow Manorma. It may be added that Maganlal has given particulars of his family to show that there is considerable longevity in his family. His eldest daughter was then aged 57 years and he had a younger brother aged 63 years also living. The learned Single Judge has accepted the annual income of Rs. 36,000/ - shown by the deceased in his income -tex return and his not annual income as Rs. 28,000/ - on the basis of the assessment made. The learned Single Judge has calculated the annual dependency or the pecuniary loss to the dependents at Rs. 16,000/ - by excluding Rs. 12, 000/ - from the not income for the personal expenses of the deceased. It has also been held that the deceased would ordinarily have led an active working life upto the age of 65 years. Inspite of this conclusion the learned Single Judge has adopted the multiplier of twenty. On this basis the compensation awarded is Rs. 16,000/ -x 20= Rs. 3,20,000/ -. The learned Single Judge has awarded interest thereon only @ 6% p.a. from the date of award until payment. The claim petition was filed before the Tribunal on May 30, 1979. The Tribunal gave its award on October 9, 1980 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge in dated December 11, 1981. ;