JUDGMENT :

1. Vide this order, above mentioned appeal as well as cross-objection would be disposed of as they have arisen out of the common award.

2. Claimants had filed claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Narottam Suman in the motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on 18.03.2008. Learned Tribunal vide impugned award dated 23.06.2010 has allowed the claim petition. Hence, the Corporation has filed the appeal seeking dismissal of the claim petition, whereas, claimants have filed the cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

3. Learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that the claimants had failed to establish that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. In-fact, the father of the deceased had lodged the FIR to the effect that the accident had occurred with a Dumper, whereas, later bus-in-question was falsely involved in this case. No reliance could be placed on the testimony of AW-2. Eye-witness in the FIR has not been examined before the learned Tribunal. Compensation granted was also on a higher side. Bus-in-question was taken in possession by the police on 04.04.2008, whereas, the accident had occurred on 18.03.2008.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that AW-2 has duly established the case of the claimants. The said witness had witnessed the accident and has been cited as an eye-witness in the challan presented against the driver of the offending bus. In-fact, the father of the deceased was not present at the spot and had lodged the FIR as per the facts narrated to him. Compensation granted by the learned Tribunal was on a lower side and requires enhancement.

5. In order to prove the manner of accident, claimants have examined AW-2 Ram Charan. The said witness has deposed that on 18.03.2008, he was travelling on his motorcycle. Narottam Suman was travelling ahead of him. In the meantime, bus bearing No. RJ-28-0523 was going towards Kishangarh side and struck against Narottam Suman. As a result, Narottam Suman suffered injuries and was removed to the hospital and later he scummed to his injuries.

6. In the present case, FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased. Although, in the FIR, it was alleged that the accident had occurred with a Dumper, but it appears that on investigation by the police, it transpired that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus.

7. Statement of AW-2 was recorded by the police and he has been cited as an eye-witness at the time of presentation of challan. Name of Bheru Lal Yadav has been mentioned in the FIR as an eye-witness and the said witness has also been arrayed as an eye-witness in the criminal case by the Investigating Agency. Complete reading of statement of AW-2 leads to the inference that the said witness had witnessed the accident and has deposed that as per the incident witnessed by him. Since, one of the eyewitness had been examined by the claimants to establish the manner of accident, learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon the statement of the eye-witness AW-2 while deciding Issue No.1 and 2 in favour of the claimants.

8. The next question that requires consideration is as to what would be the amount of compensation liable to be received by the claimants. As per the postmortem report, deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 17 is liable to be applied to workout the compensation amount.

9. It was the case of the complainants that the deceased was working on a petrol pump. However, no documentary evidence was led on record in this regard. In these circumstances, the income of the deceased was liable to be taken as Rs.2,600/- per month in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time. Claimants are the widow, minor child and parents of the deceased. Hence, 1/3rd out of the income of the deceased was liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Th