The Court held that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the testimony of the eyewitnesses and in calculating the income of the deceased. The Court also held that the accident was caused due to the negligence of both the bus driver and the motorcycle rider.

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

1. Smt. Basant Rani and her minor daughter had filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation on account of death of Suresh Kumar, husband of the claimant No. 1 who died in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Ran Singh, driver of Bus No. DEP-3737. The Bus was owned by respondent No. 2, Krishan Bus Service, Delhi-Hisar Transport Co. (P) Ltd. and was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak vide its award dated 20.2.1985 had dismissed the claim petition by holding that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Bus. However, the Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- per month and after deducting 1/4 from the income of the deceased as his personal expenses, assessed the dependency of the claimants on the deceased at Rs. 750/- i.e. Rs. 9,000/- per annum. By applying a multiplier of 16, the claimants were held entitled to Rs. 1,44,000/-as compensation on account of death of Suresh Kumar. The liability to pay compensation was fastened on the Insurance Company. However, no compensation was paid to the claimants as the Tribunal had returned a finding that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Bus No. DEP-3737.

3. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants have filed the present appeal. The award has been assailed on many counts.

4. During the pendency of appeal, the claimants had also filed an application under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of no fault liability alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The application was allowed with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants with 12% interest from the date of filing of the application till its realisation.

5. While assailing the award of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the version of the claimants with regard to the occurrence was rejected by the Tribunal without cogent reasons, whereas the claimants were able to prove that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus. Learned counsel further contends that the dependency of the claimants on the deceased has not been properly worked out.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have pleaded that there is no infirmity in the award of the Tribunal. As such, no interference in the well reasoned award is called for.

7. In order to come to the conclusion, the Court has scanned the evidence brought on record.

8. The case of the appellants is that Suresh Kumar was riding a motor cycle on 29.12.1982, which was being driven by another person. When the motor cycle reached near the bus stop of village Bhau Jamalpur, a bus bearing registration No. DEP 3737, which was being driven by Ran Singh in rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road without honking the horn, struck against the motor cycle with the result that Suresh Kumar fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries. He was removed to the hospital in an injured condition, where he remained under treatment upto 11.1.1983 and died subsequently.

9. The claim petition was contested by the owner, driver and the Insurance Company. The respondents denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus. It was pleaded that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle. The deceased and two other persons who were riding the motor cycle were in drunken condition. On seeing the manner in which motor cycle was being driven, the driver of the bus stopped the bus at the extreme left hand side of the road. The motor cycle driver could not control the motor cycle and struck against the bus. The respondents further pleaded that the claimants are not entit