The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in a motor accident case, considering contributory negligence, loss of dependency, and the appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation.

J.R. Midha, J.

The appellants have challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/- has been awarded to the appellants. The appellants seek enhancement of the award amount.

2. The accident dated 4th November, 1991 resulted in the death of Ashok Kumar. The deceased was survived by his widow, one son, one daughter and parents who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.

3. On 4th November, 1991, the deceased was driving his two-wheeler scooter on G.T. Road near Village Bakoli, Jai Bharat Dharam Kanta when the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking bus bearing No. CH-01G-5085 came from behind and hit the deceased resulting in his death.

4. The deceased was a businessman earning Rs. 3,434/- per month. The deceased was Income Tax payee. As per the Income Tax Return - Ex.PW2/3, the income of the deceased for the year 1991-92 was Rs. 41,212/-. After deduction of Rs. 10,000/- towards the investment made by the deceased, the taxable income was Rs. 31,210/-. The learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased to be Rs. 31,210/- and 50% was added towards the future prospects and the income of the deceased was taken to be Rs. 3,900/- per month. 1/3rd was deducted by the learned Tribunal towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the multiplier of 15 was applied to compute the loss of dependency at Rs. 3,74,400/-. Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded towards funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium. The total compensation computed by the learned Tribunal is Rs. 3,84,000/-. The learned Tribunal held the deceased to be contributory negligent to the extent of 50% and, therefore, the compensation computed has been reduced by 50% and Rs. 1,92,000/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has urged the following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:

(i) The driver of the offending bus alone was negligent and, therefore, the finding of the contributory negligence of the deceased is not correct.

(ii) The income of the deceased be taken to be Rs. 5,151/- per month as per Income Tax Return - Ex.PW2/3.

(iii) The personal expenses of the deceased be reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4th considering that the deceased left behind five dependents.

(iv) The compensation be awarded for loss of love and affection.

6. With respect to the finding of contributory negligence, the learned Tribunal has relied upon the statement of driver of the bus who appeared as RW-1 and deposed that there were two parallel roads in the same direction from Sindhu Border to Delhi and the deceased was moving on one road while the bus was moving on the main road running along. RW-1 further deposed that the scooterist suddenly changed the lane and came in front of the bus due to which the accident occurred. The learned Tribunal, therefore, observed that the deceased was negligent in suddenly changing the lane and coming in front of the bus and, therefore, was contributory negligent.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to and relied upon the written statement of the driver as well as the owner of the bus in which it has been stated that the scooterist came on the wrong side on the other lane all of a sudden to cross over to the other lane and came in front of the bus as a result of which he struck his scooter against the bus on the right side of the bumper meaning thereby that the scooterist was coming from the opposite direction. However, the driver of the bus took the contradictory stand in the witness box. The driver of the bus appeared as RW-1 and deposed that the scooter and bus were moving in the same direction but in different lanes and the scooterist suddenly changed the lane and came in front of the bus. In view of the contradictory stand taken by the driver in the written statement and in the witness box, RW-1 is unworthy of credit and his statement cannot be relied upon.

8. Chetan Sharma is the independent eye-witness o