RAM AUTAR SURESH KUMAR Vs. KANTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the owner of bus No. DLP 3871 against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, contesting his liability for the death of one Gulshan Kumari. The accident took place on 7.1.1968 in which Gulshan Kumari was crushed under the bus as she fell down from the bus when the driver stopped the bus and again restarted it in a very negligent and rash manner. The deceased was 23 years old at the time of the accident and was employed with M/s. Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Manufacturing Co., Lajpat Nagar, at a monthly salary of Rs. 158.00. The appellant had examined RW 1 Riaz Ahmed to support his claim. His case was that the deceased jumped out of the bus of her own accord and was crushed under the bus. The Tribunal has disbelieved the statement of Riaz Ahmed for he was standing near the back entrance of the bus while the deceased girl boarded the bus from the front entrance. The Tribunal found that the deceased was standing on the front stairs and there were 3 or 4 other persons standing by the side of the girl. The Tribunal also disbelieved the story of the appellant that the deceased jumped from the bus of her own accord. The Tribunal found from the evidence of Riaz Ahmed that the conductor had given awhistle for stopping the bus and that the bus had already slowed down. The Tribunal has lightly observed that if the bus had stopped, there was no necessity for the deceased to jump. I fully agree with the appreciation of the evidence by the Tribunal. The Tribunal on the appreciation of the evidence of the eye-witnesses and Dr. D. Mukherjee, who examined the deceased immediately after the accident, came to the conclusion that the fact of the accident and the injuries caused to the deceased by rash and negligent driving of bus No. DLP 3871 thus stands established. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

(2.) There is a cross-objection filed by the claimant, who is the mother ofthe deceased. It is pointed out in the cross-objection (that although the Tribunal found that the deceased was earning Rs. 158.00 per month and the claimant had stated that the deceased was spending Rs. 30.00 per month as her personal expenses), the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the contribution of the deceased to the family was only Rs. 60.00 per month. The finding ofthe Tribunal is without any evidence. I, therefore, hold that the deceased was contributing Rs. 128.00 per month for the support of the family. Since this is a claim by the mother I do not think that the multiplier of 15, as taken by the Tribunal, is unreasonable. It is, therefore, ordered that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 23,040.00 as compensation. She would also be entitled to 9 per cent simple interest from the date of application till the date of payment.

(3.) The bus in question, DLP 3871, was under contract with the Delhi Transport Undertaking (D.T.U.). Under the contract the liability ofthe accident rests with the owner of the bus. Therefore, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, D.T.U. and D.M.C. respectively, are not liable to make any payment. I also agree with the Tribunal that at the relevant time the liability of respondent No. 2, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., was limited only to Rs. 2,000.00. Therefore, the main liability is that of the appellants for payment of compensation and interest. They would be jointly and severally liable. The cross-objection is allowed.