Hon’ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J.—This First Appeal From Order has been filed against the award dated 28.4.2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (District Judge), Jaunpur in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 96 of 2007, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/- alongwith 6% simple interest per annum.

2. The facts in brief are that Vaibhav Gupta, who was the son of the claimants, was travelling from Jaunpur to Lucknow by Bus No. U.P.-65 AR-1874 owned by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The deceased requested the Bus driver to stop the Bus to attend the naturals call. The Bus was stopped by the driver at a place where a live high voltage electric wire was hanging. While getting down from the bus, the deceased got in touch with the electric wire, fell down on the road and died due to electric shock.

3. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jaunpur after recording the evidence of both the parties and considering the F.I.R. as well as the investigation, came to the conclusion that deceased died due to negligence of the driver of the Bus and passed the impugned award.

4. The award has been challenged mainly on the ground that the death of Vaibhav Gupta (deceased) was not caused due to any rash and negligence driving of the Corporation Bus, on the part of the Bus Driver, hence the Corporation was not liable to pay any compensation. The claim petition was not maintainable as the death of Vaibhav Gupta was not caused due to an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicles. The electric wires maintained by the U.P. Power Corporation, were at a height of 21 Ft. from the ground level. The current did not pass through in the Bus. The deceased was required to be careful. He touched the said wire due to which he was electrocuted. There was negligence on the part of the deceased, and that the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants was in the nature of highly interested witnesses. The Tribunal has without any basis assumed the income of the deceased @ Rs. 3000/- per month and has wrongly applied the multiplier of 17. The Tribunal ought to have adopted a lower multiplier taking into account the age of the parents of the deceased. The Tribunal has erred in awarding the penal interest @ 9% in case the amount of compensation is not paid by the Corporation within 30 days. The claimants were not entitled for any interest and thus the impugned award is illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, excessive and without jurisdiction.

5. Mr. Samir Sharma, learned counsel appeared for the appellants and Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appeared for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Notices were also sent to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 but none appeared for these respondents.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the lower Court record.

7. The main points for determination are :

(i) Whether there has been any negligence on the part of the Driver of the Bus?

(ii) Whether the said accident is an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle?

(iii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in fixing the annual income of the deceased as well as the multiplier?

(iv) Whether the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding penal interest at the rate of 9% per annum?

Point No. 1

8. It is an admitted fact that on the day of incident the deceased Vaibhav Gupta was travelling by Bus No. U.P.-65 AR-1874 from Jaunpur to Lucknow. The Bus was owned by the appellants. It is also admitted fact that the deceased had requested the Bus Driver to stop the Bus to attend the naturals call. It is also admitted case that the deceased came in contract with the loosely hanging live high tension wire and died due to electric shock. The deceased was a bona fide passenger of the aforesaid Bus. There is no such plea that the Bus was stopped by the driver under any emergent situation. After considering the request of the deceased, the driver must have taken the decision to stop the Bus on the road side. The incident took place at abo