JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal and cross-objections are directed against the Judgment and Award dated 21.09.2020, the operative portion of which reads as follows :

“The petition is partly allowed holding the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation in the sum of Rs.6,41,970/- to the claimant no.3 as the widowed sister and her 3 minor children alone as held before, which shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the application till the date of the award and further interest at the same rate in case the said amount is not paid within a month from today till payment. The amount, if any, awarded in their favour under Section 140 of the Act shall be adjusted against the compensation appropriately.

The amount shall be apportioned 50:50 in favour of the claimant no.3 on the one hand and the balance 50% equally between the 3 minor children whose shares shall be invested in fixed deposits in any Nationalized Bank/s till they attain their respective ages of majority. The claimants shall also be entitled to the costs of the petition.

Award to be drawn accordingly.”

2. Mr. Kantak learned counsel for the Kadamba Transport Corporation (KTC) – the owner of the bus involved in the accident at the outset submitted that there is no evidence to establish negligence on the part of the driver of the KTC bus and therefore no award for compensation should have been made against the KTC.

3. In this case, there is evidence that the driver of the KTC bus was prosecuted by the State and convicted for offenses under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. In a criminal prosecution, the State is required to establish the guilt of the driver beyond a reasonable doubt. In a matter seeking compensation before the Tribunal, the aspect of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle has to be established only on a standard of preponderance of probabilities. This is sufficient to uphold the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the aspect of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the KTC bus involved in the accident. Even otherwise, the evidence on record is more than sufficient to sustain such a finding. The first contention of Mr. Kantak will therefore have to be rejected.

4. Mr. Kantak then submitted that there is no evidence on record about the claimant no.3, the widowed sister of the deceased Sagar Chodankar, and her three daughters being dependent upon deceased Sagar. He submits that in the claim petition originally filed, there was no such plea taken and such plea was taken by amending the claim petition after almost three years. He submits that this is indicative of an afterthought. He submitted that the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, there should have been a deduction to the extent of 50% towards the expenses that the deceased would have incurred upon himself. He submitted that the Tribunal erred in making a deduction of only 1/3rd in the present case. He submits that the deceased had no promotional prospects and there was no evidence that claimant no.3 had no independent source of income or was not provided for by her other brothers.

5. Mr. Kantak submits that even the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is incorrect. He relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. -2017 (16) SCC 680 in support of his contentions. Based on all this Mr. Kantak submitted that the compensation determined by the Tribunal is excessive and warrants interference.

6. Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents-claimants submitted that the compensation determined by the Tribunal was much less than the just compensation due and payable to claimant no.3 the widowed sister of deceased Sagar. He submitted that no allowance has been made towards future prospects and the compensation awarded towards the loss of estate, funeral expenses are too meager. He submits that there is no award made towards the loss of consortium. He submits that the appeal is liable to be dismiss