STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SHAKUNTLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 4-2-1981, Des Raj, aged about 40 years, who was a store-keeper in the Electricity Department, Chandigarh, was sitting on the carrier of the cycle driven by Surinder Kumar (PW 6), at about 5.45 P.M. when bus PUG-1783 owned by the State of Punjab struck their cycle and as a result of the accident, due to the injuries received therein Des Raj died. The bus was being driven by Sher Singh. The accident took place near village Attawa in the out-skirts of Chandigarh town. The widow aged 35, son aged 19 and two daughters aged 13 and 8, filed claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, and blamed driver of the Punjab Roadways bus for his negligent driving, in which Des Raj was killed. In the written statement, blame was put on the cyclist. But at the time of evidence, the driver of the bus made a statement which clearly shows that be was negligent. He had stated that a truck was coming from the opposite direction and wanted to take a turn to the left, and, therefore, the bus driver swerved' to the left, but when he found that the truck driver was not taking turn to the left and was coming straight, he again took turn to the right and struck the cyclist to save the accident. He further stated that if he had not turned towards right, he would have struck the truck and greater loss would have been caused.

(2.) THE Tribunal considered the statement of the driver and the other evidence on record and came to the conclusion that it was the bus driver who was negligent. As regards compensation, it found that income of the deceased was Rs. 1200/- p.m., out of which Rs. 800/- p.m. was the dependency and after applying the multiplier of 20 years, it awarded Rs. 1,92,000/-with 10 per cent interest. This is first appeal by the State of Punjab in which cross-objections have been filed by the claimants.

(3.) ADVERTING to the quantum of compensation, I am of the view that reasonable compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal and there is scope neither for reduction nor for enhancement. The dependency as well as the multiplier have been correctly found and applied. This Court had ordered that the amount be deposited by the State and the same be paid to the claimants on their furnishing security. In case the amount is already paid, the matter, stands fully satisfied, and in case the amount has not been paid so far, the State would be liable to pay the amount along with 12 per cent per annum interest from the date of the filing of claim application till the date of payment along with costs of both the courts. The appeal and cross objections stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.