The aspect of negligence has to be proved by the claimants. The assessment of compensation is based on the income of the deceased. The Ld. Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation amount based on the income of the deceased and granted compensation on account of love and affection, loss of consortium, and loss of estate.

Suresh Kait, J.

1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2004 passed by the Ld. Tribunal whereby appellant/DTC was directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,93,000/(Rs.17,43,000 – Rs.50,000/- Paid towards interim compensation) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

2. Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that no witness was produced by the respondents / claimants to prove negligence of the driver of offending vehicle in question.

3. If the negligence has not been proved, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.

4. On the second issue, Ld. Counsel for the appellants has argued that ld. Tribunal has considered the salary certificate of the deceased produced by the employer (Ex.PW3/1), wherein the total salary is mentioned as Rs.9,200/- per month inclusive of conveyance allowance.

5. Ld. Counsel further submitted that Ld. Tribunal has not deducted the conveyance allowance from the salary and has considered Rs.9,000/-per month without any basis. He further submitted that conveyance allowance should have been deducted while calculating the monthly income of the deceased.

6. Mr. Aggarwal further submitted that as per the dictum of Sarla Verma v. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121 and multiplier of 16 has been wrongly applied by the ld. Tribunal, whereas keeping in view the age of the deceased, the multiplier should have

been 15.

7. It is submitted that on 01.03.2000 respondent no. 2 Sh. Khazan Singh was performing his duty with bus no. DEP-9802 as a Driver. He was driving his bus very carefully, cautiously on the correct side of the road. At about 08.10 hours, the bus reached near B Block Vikaspuri, near Kothi No. C-7, when a scooterist came rashly and negligently from behind and hit against back side of the DTC bus. The bus driver stopped the bus and came to know that the scooterist was hit by another vehicle as a result of which he lost control on the scooter and hit the scooter with the bus. The scooterist fell down and received accidental injuries due to his own fault and negligence and of the other vehicle who ran away from the spot after hitting the scooterist.

8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondents / claimants submitted that constable Sayed Azad has proved his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. as Ex.PX-8, wherein it is stated that Driver Khajan Singh admitted that the accident had taken place due to his negligence. Apart from that, the FIR, site plan and charge sheet of the case proved that the accident took place with the offending vehicle in question. Ld. Counsel further submitted that even from the mechanical inspection, the damage has been shown on the rear side of the scooter, which proves that the bus hit the scooter from the back side.

9. Ld. Counsel further submitted that PW3 Bimal Kanti Nath, Assistant-cum-Manager of the Gramophone Company of India, where the deceased was also working has proved that deceased was receiving a salary of Rs.9,200/-per month, whereas the ld. Tribunal has considered only Rs.9,000/- per month. Ld. Counsel further submits that about the bifurcation of the salary, the appellant has not put any question to the aforesaid witness as to how much was the actual salary and what were the deductions from that.

10. He further submitted that ld. Tribunal has to grant just compensation by considering all the facts, but it failed to grant any compensation on account of loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and loss of estate.

11. To strengthen his arguments, Ld. Counsel further submitted that on the above mentioned heads, this Court has power to grant compensation as the present case is under the welfare legislation. Further submits that case of Sarla Verma (Supra) is of 2009, whereas the accident took place in the year 2000 and has been decided on the basis of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadev, 1996 III AD SC 13.

12. Ld. Counsel for the