S. C. MOHAPATRA, V. P. GOEL, JJ.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the owner under Section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

( 2 ) ON 22. 9. 1986 deceased was travelling in a bus belonging to the appellant. On the way the bus hit a cart carrying long poles. One of the poles pierced into the bus and caused injuries to the deceased to which he succumbed. On this account attributing negligence in driving of the bus, widow of the deceased and his major sons have filed an application claiming compensation of rs. 4,00,0007 -.

( 3 ) OWNER contested the application where it asserted that there was no negligence in driving of the bus and accordingly, it would not be liable to pay compensation.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal on consideration of materials on the record held that driver of the bus was negligent in driving which resulted in the accident causing fatal injury to the deceased. It held that deceased was having a monthly income of Rs. 2,000/- at the time of his death and from out of it spending Rs. 500/- for himself, he was contributing the balance to the family. Tribunal determined just compensation of Rs. 2,62,000/- on the finding that the major sons are not entitled to any compensation. Excessive compensation is the grievance of the appellant, reiterating that it is not liable to pay any compensation. Claimants have also filed a cross-objection for enhancement of compensation.

( 5 ) MR. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that the driver of the bus has been examined in this case from which it will be clear that there was no negligence in driving of the bus. Tribunal has considered the evidence of the driver and evidence of PW 2, a co-passenger in the bus. It was found that the cart carrying long poles had a red flag and light burnt to indicate carriage of long poles. This fact has been accepted by the driver. Any person driving a heavy vehicle carrying passengers would be careful in driving, so that the passengers are not inconvenienced in any manner on account of his driving the vehicle. In this case we are satisfied that the driver was negligent in driving of the vehicle which was the cause of accident. Thus, on account of death of passenger, the owner is liable to pay compensation.

( 6 ) RIGHTLY, the Tribunal has held that the major sons are not entitled to compensation in this case. If the deceased was spending Rs. 500/- for himself and was contributing the balance to the family, it will be reasonable to hold that the said amount was contributed to wife. Thus, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 18,000/- per year. Deceased was aged about 45 years. He was a goldsmith. Added to the loss of dependency, mental pain to the wife cannot be ignored. Taking the loss of dependency and mental pain together, we are satisfied that the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- would be just in the present case. Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 11 per cent per annum and we maintain the same. Thus, the widow of the deceased is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 11 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of payment.

( 7 ) WIDOW is to receive compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 11 per cent from the date of application till payment is made, she has been allowed to receive more than Rs. 1,00,000/- directed to be deposited as a condition to the stay granted. In furtherance of social justice, Tribunal and court are to take steps so that destitutes like widows and minor children can be protected and maintained out of the compensation amount and the same is not misutilised or misappropriated by others, taking advantage of their helpless condition. She may be requiring some amount immediately. Keeping the same in mind, we direct that on appellant depositing the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand rupees) more shall be paid to her to meet her immediate expenses and maintenance expenses for one year and the balance amount shall be invested in unencumb

Click Here to Read the rest of this document