PNDIT RAM SAROOP Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the parents of deceased Naresh Kumar who died in a road accident on 3.5.1978. He boarded bus No. DLP 6059 at the General Store and was to get down at the Ordnance Depot, Shakurbasti, Delhi. The bus was plying on route No. 914 running from Punjabi Bagh to Nangloi. At the Ordnance Depot the bus did not stop and went ahead about ninety feet. When Naresh Kumar was getting down from the bus, the bus suddenly started. Naresh Kumar fell down and the rear wheel of the bus ran over him. He was taken to the hospital in the same bus by an eye-witness, Som Dutt, but he died on the way.

(2.) Som Dutt, in his evidence, has fully supported this version of the accident. He has further stated that after running over the deceased the bus driver tried to speed away but he along with Azad Singh, Public witness 4, intercepted the bus and brought it to halt. He also stated that he took Naresh Kumar to the hospital in the same bus and informed the Police Station at Punjabi Bagh. Public witness 4, Azad Singh, is a natural witness. He has his tea stall near the bus stop. He has also fully supported the claimants' version. The respondents' version was that Naresh Kumar jumped out of the moving bus and fell down and thus received the injuries. They, however, did not produce any evidence to substantiate this version. Even the bus driver was not examined. The Tribunal believed the eye-witnesses and held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. DLP 6059 and the deceased was killed in the said accident.

(3.) I was taken through the evidence of the eye-witness and I am satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal is correct. As regards the income of the deceased it was stated in the claim petition that the deceased was working for M/s. Gupta Plastic Works and was getting Rs. 500.00. Public witness 2, Som Dutt, however, stated in his evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 800.00 per month and was paying Rs. 500.00 per month to his father. Rajinder Kumar, Public witness 5, who was appearing for M/s. Chandresh Plastic has deposed that the deceased was doing the job of dyeing chappals on contract basis for his factory and was being paid Rs. 300.00 to Rs. 350.00 per month. On this evidence the Tribunal found that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 800.00. However, since in the claim petition the income was mentioned at Rs. 500.00 the Tribunal accepted only Rs. 500.00 as the income of the deceased. The counsel for the claimants submitted that the income of the deceased should be taken at Rs. 800.00per month as found by the Tribunal. The counsel for the insurance company, however, objects to it. He has submitted that no evidence can be led beyond the original pleadings of the parties and, therefore, the evidence of the additional income of Rs. 300.00 from M/s. Chandresh Plastic should not be taken into consideration for determining compensation. The strict rules of Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act are not applicable to the proceedings in the motor accidents claims cases. When Rajinder Kumar, Public witness 5, appeared on behalf of M/s. Chandresh Plastic no objection was raised by the respondents and this witness was in fact cross-examined. The submission of the counsel for the claimants that at the time when the claim petition was filed the father of the deceased did not know as to different places where the job of dyeing chappals was being done by the deceased appears to be a reasonable explanation. I, therefore, hold that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 800.00. I have also no hesitation in accepting the evidence that he was contributing Rs. 500.00 to the family. The Tribunal was quite right in applying the multiplier of 16. The accident took place in 1978 and both the parents are still alive. The claimants are thus entitled to the compensation of Rs. 96,000.00. They are also entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the application till the date of the payment.