The court applied the Second Schedule to the Act to determine the appropriate multiplier for compensation, despite the accident occurring before the schedule came into force. The court awarded compensation for loss of dependency and pain and suffering, and directed the respondent to pay the amount with interest.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J.

1. This is an appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment dated 18.4.1996, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Suit No. 584 of 1988.

2. By virtue of the said judgment, the appellants have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 91,200. The appellants being aggrieved by the same, have preferred the present appeal.

3. Before adverting to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it may be useful to detail out certain facts and circumstances, which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal.

4. On 5.6.1988, one Pritam Singh had met with a road accident while he was proceeding from Janakpuri to Kamla Market. The cause spelled out being rash and negligent driving of a bus bearing registration No. DHP 3356 (hereinafter in short referred as 'the offending vehicle') owned by respondent No. 1, i.e., Delhi Transport Corporation. The offending vehicle was driven by its driver, respondent No. 2, i.e., Bakshi Ram. The victim Pritam Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Pritam Singh died on 5.6.1988.

5. Aggrieved by the same, an action was jointly instituted, on 17.8.1988 by the appellant No. 1, who is the widow of the deceased Pritam Singh and the children, i.e., appellant Nos. 2 to 10. The action was registered as Suit No. 584 of 1988.

6. In the suit filed by the appellants, the owner of the bus, i.e., Delhi Transport Corporation was impleaded as respondent No. 1; the driver of the offending vehicle was impleaded as respondent No. 2 and the mother of the deceased Nyadri Devi was impleaded as respondent No. 3.

7. The petition was opposed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who filed their written statement on 23.1.1989. Obviously, there was no opposition by respondent No. 3 who is the mother of the deceased. To the written statement, a replication was filed by the appellants on 9.2.1989 reiterating the stand taken in the petition and denying the averments made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their joint written statement.

8. The matter was put to trial and after recording of evidence, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment on 18.4.1996.

9. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal culled out the following points for determination:

(1) Whether the cause of accident is the negligent driving of the bus No. DHP 3356 by respondent No. 2?

(2) Whether the deceased Pritam Singh died due to this accident?

(3) Whether the petitioners are L.Rs. of the deceased and entitled for compensation from respondents?

(4) To what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled from respondents?

10. In the judgment in appeal, as regards the first point, based on the testimony of witnesses, i.e., ASI Krishan Chand, PW 1 and HC Rajender Singh, PW 10, Tribunal came to the conclusion that the death of Pritam Singh was caused on account of offending vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 2 and that; the accident took place while the deceased Pritam Singh was standing on the road. The Tribunal disbelieved the version of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 taken in the written statement that the deceased had died on account of his carelessness in alighting from the offending vehicle before it could be brought to a halt at the designated bus stop. The relevant observation and the finding of the Claims Tribunal on this aspect of the matter read as follows:

...It is important to mention here that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not disputed the factum of the accident. They have also not disputed the involvement of the offending D.T.C. bus No. DHP 3356 in this accident. They have also not disputed that the time of the accident the bus was driven by Bakshi Ram, respondent No. 2. The only dispute as borne out from the pleas of the parties is whether or not the respondent No. 2 is responsible for the accident.

In his examination, HC Rajender Singh, PW 10, has stated that on 5.6.1988,