The court applied the principles of negligence under the Motor Vehicles Act and the multiplier system established by the Apex Court to determine compensation in a motor vehicle accident case.

P.K.Deb, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 22.1.1987 passed in Compensation Case No. 58 of 1982 by then Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chaibasa.

2. The claimants-respondents No. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of deceased Hridaya Sharma who was the Junior Engineer, Rural Electrification (R.E.O.) under the Bihar State Electricity Board posted at Rajnagar in the district of Singhbhum. His father and mother were alive at the time of filing of compensation case any they have also joined as claimants in the case. According to the claim case, the deceased Hirdaya Sharma on 21.1.1982 at about 9 A.M. was coming from Rajnagar to Chaibasa, on Motor Cycle bearing registration No. BRS 4125, sitting on its pillion, driven by one Nand Kishore Gupta, when the Motor Cycle was approaching a narrow bridge over a Nala at a distance about 8 K.M. Chaibasa, the offending bus bearing registration No. BRX 7741 of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as the Transport Bus) driven by Shamim Mian, the opposite party No. 4, respondent No. 6 came from the opposite direction in rash and negligent way. According to the claimants, the driver of the motor cycle gave a signal for stop age of the bus as the motor-cycle was already on the narrow bridge itself but without considering rather ignoring the signal given by the motor cycle, the Transport Bus came in high speed and mode head on collusion with the motor cycle, as a result of which, both the driver and pillion rider on the motor cycle were thrown out and died instantaneously.

3. In the written statement filed by the Corporation, it took different plea stating that the driver of the motor cycle negligence as he had ignored the light signal given by the Transport Bus driver and ignoring that signal, the motor cycle came over narrow bridge, The Transport Bus stopped seeing the motor-cycle coming to it in rash and negligent way and cashed against the Stationery Bus of the Transport and hence the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the motor cycle.

4. Both the parties adduced evidence. The driver of the bus was also examined but during the course of evidence he has completely given a go-by to the case of the defence and after considering the evidence on record, the learned Claims Tribunal came to the finding that the Bus in question was the offending bus and as such, the owner of the bus-Corporation was responsible to pay compensation under Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).

5. At the relevant time, the deceased was the Junior Engineer in R.E.O. and he was getting net Rs. 1080.00 monthly from the salary. From that amount l/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses and then by using the multiplier, compensation of Rs. 1,33,000.00 has been awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum to be counted from 23rd December, 1982, till the date of realisation.

6. Mr. V. Shivnath, appearing for and on behalf of the appellants tried to make an attempt to apply the principle of res-ipsa-liquitor as those was head- on collision between the motor cycle and the Transport Bus, that was not their case before the Tribunal rather they wanted to shirk their own responsibility and thrust it of the same on motor cycle which was belied from his own evidence as is revealed therefrom. Mr. V- Shivnath after some argument has to concede that aspect of the matter on the point of rash and negligent driving and hence the appellants could not be able to prove their case. Lastly he has submitted that the amount of compensation which has been assessed by the learned Claims Tribunalis against the principle of law and the interpretation of multiplier system given by the Apex Court time to time in various judgment.

7. Mr. A.K. Sinha, appearing for and on behalf of the claimants- respondents has supported the assessment made by the learned Claims Tribunals by