(1.) All the six appeals are connected, three at the instance of the insurer denying liability and three at the instance of claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation. Three persons were alleged to have died in an accident occurred on 23.05.2000 when they were travelling in a scooter and involved a collision with the insured's truck. Two of them died on the spot and another was alleged to have been under treatment for more than a month and succumbed to injuries ultimately on 4.7.2000.
(2.) There were no eye witnesses to the accident and all the three persons, who must have immediately known of the details had all died and therefore, the case stayed for consideration regarding negligence on the evidence of the driver of the vehicle. He was examined as RW-I and he had stated that the accident took place only by a negligent driving of the scooterist. The accident that causes instantaneous death for two persons and results in death of yet another person after some time due to grievous injuries cannot be the result of any careful driving by the truck driver. I cannot accept the evidence of the driver that he had been careful in driving but still the accident took place. Careful driving cannot result in death. It must only be taken as a res ipsa loquitur situation of making the driver of the truck liable for what it ultimately resulted out of the accident. The Tribunal already held the issue to be so and there is no scope for taking a different view. I will, therefore, reject the contention of insurance company that there was no negligence on the part of the truck driver.
(3.) As regards the quantum, the claimants in FAO No. 632 of 2003 were a widow and father of the deceased person, who was said to be 27 years and who was a goldsmith. With no proof of income, the Tribunal took his income to be Rs. 2,000/-, took the contribution to the family as Rs. 1300/- and adopted a multiplier of 16. At the relevant time when (he accident had taken place in 2000, the assumption of income at Rs. 2,000/- for a goldsmith was just and cannot be said to be either low or high. I would retain the same. 1 would provide for a contribution of 2/3rd to the family and take the annual dependency to be Rs. 16,000/-. He was aged 27 years and the annual income being less than Rs. 40,000/-, I would adopt a formula prescribed under Schedule II and take a multiplier of 18. The extent of dependence would be Rs. 2,88,000/-. I would provide for an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium to the young widow. I would add Rs. 2500/- towards loss to estate and another Rs. 2500/- for funeral expenses. The amount that will become payable would be Rs. 3,03,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,56,000/-. The sum in excess of what has already been awarded shall bear an interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment and shall be received only by the widow. The apportionment for the amount as already prescribed by the Tribunal in the award between the widow and the father is retained. The cross appeal shall stand allowed to the above extent.