Usha Attri and Another vs State of Haryana and Others

Gokal Chand Mittal, J.—On 1.12.1981 at about 8.45 a.m. on Karnal-Kaithal road near Maan Sheller and opposite Dera Tehal Singh, in the revenue estate of village Nissing, Dr. D.V. Attri who was going on his moped No. HYC 9905 to Primary Health Centre, Nissing to attend to his official duty as Block Medical Officer, was run over by the Haryana Roadways bus No. HRD 5690. The bus was being driven by Satnam Singh driver. In the accident Dr. Attri received serious injuries and was first removed to Civil Hospital, Karnal and then to PGI, Chandigarh, and ultimately on 9.12.1981 he died on account of the injuries received in the accident. The first information report was got recorded on the basis of statement of Chambel Singh in which bus No. etc. were mentioned. The widow and the son of Dr. Attri filed application for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal''), Karnal. The deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 2,547/-. The State of Haryana, the General Manager, Haryana Roadways to which the bus belonged and the driver of the bus denied the accident. There was total denial of the named bus being involved in the accident and if it was being driven by the named driver.

On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(1) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. HRD 5690, driven by Respondent No. 2?

(2) To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and from whom?

On the evidence led in the case, the Tribunal by award dated 2nd March, 1983 came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was negligent due to which accident took place and the doctor died as a result of the injuries received in the accident. Under issue No. 2, it was found that the claimants were entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 90,000/- and 6 per cent interest was allowed thereon. Against the aforesaid award, FAO No. 413 of 1983 has been filed by the State of Haryana and General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Karnal for reversal of the award and FAO No. 467 of 1983 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement. Since they arise out of the same claim petition, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

As regards issue No. 1,1 have carefully considered the evidence and the findings recorded by the Tribunal and I find no ground for interference. It would suffice to say that a totally false plea was taken by the driver and the State, that the bus was not at the place where the accident took place and was not being driven by the named driver. The claimants had to produce a clerk from the Roadways depot, Karnal, to prove that the bus was involved. Jai Bhagwan PW 6, a clerk from Roadways office, appeared on 7.1.1983 and stated that the bus No. HRD 5690 left Karnal depot on 1.12.1981 at 8.15 a.m. for village Brass which was ahead of village Nissing and Satnam Singh was driver of the bus. According to the witness it takes normally about one hour for the bus to reach village Brass from Karnal, and village Nissing is 15 miles from Karnal. Gurcharan Singh, mechanic of the Haryana Roadways, Karnal, appeared as RW 2 who in examination-in-chief has stated that on 1.12.1981 he mechanically examined bus No. HRD 5690 and he had sent his report, which was placed on the criminal file, which was summoned and he proved that his report was Exh. R-l. He had also examined moped HYC 9905. His report regarding the damage of the same is Exh. R-2. In cross-examination he admitted as follows:

There is an application on the criminal file, by General Manager, Haryana Roadways, for releasing the bus on superdari. It is mentioned in the application that bus No. HRD 5690 was involved in the accident.

From the above evidence it is clear that the ill-fated bus was going on its normal route and was supposed to be at the place where the accident took place. Therefore, the total denial of the driver and the State in the pleadings should be considered as a false denial simply to evade the liability to compensate the heirs of the deceased. Believing the statements of PW 6 and RW 2 along with the statements of the eye-witnesses I hold that the bus was involved in the accident, which was caused due to the negligence of the driver. Moreover, inference of negligence is drawn because of the false denial taken in the written statement.

Adverting to the quantum of compensation the deceased was 50 years old at the time of accident and unless had bad service record, he would have retired in 8 years'' time. He was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 2,547/-on the date of accident. He left a widow and a grown-up son, who was not employed at that time. The Tribunal was of the view that he would have retired in five years'' time unless he was to get three years'' extension. The observations of the court are wrong. He would have continued in service for eight years and he could have been retired earlier if his service record was not good. There is no plea that his service record was not good. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 6 and on that basis awarded Rs. 90,000/-. I am of the view that multiplier of at least 10 should have been applied. On applying multiplier of 10 the claimants would be entitled to Rs. l,50,000/-and I order accordingly.

As regards the apportionment, in couple of years the son would have ceased to be a dependent on his father but the poor widow may live for couple of decades. These days the span of life has increased. Accordingly, out of the awarded amount, Rs. 1,20,000/- should be paid to the widow and Rs. 30,000/- to the son. On the aforesaid amount they would be entitled to 12 per cent per annum interest from the date of filing of claim application till realization.

As a result the State appeal stands dismissed and the claimants'' appeal stands allowed with costs.