The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the owner for compensation in cases of motor accidents due to rash and negligent driving, and the assessment of just and proper compensation by the tribunal.

J.C.S. Rawat, J.

1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 28-10-2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge Champawat (hereinafter referred as Tribunal') in MAC. No. 29/2003 Smt. Balwanti Devi & others Vs. U .P. State Road Transport Corporation, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 8,15,740/- as compensation against the appellant-U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as •U.P.S.R.T.C.'), The appellant was directed to deposit the amount of compensation within two months from the date of award. In default of payment, the claimants-respondents would be entitled for interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants-respondents had filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 16,20,000/- alleging therein that on 12-05-2003 the deceased-Milap Singh was travelling from Champawat to Tanakpur in the offending Bus No. UP 02B-7357, which was being driven rashly and negligently by 'ts driver When the offending bus reached near Kathol and Chalthi, it fell into a gorge due to rash and negligent driving of its driver. The deceased had sustained the grievous injuries on his person and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. It was further pleaded that the deceased was employed as Hawaldar in the Indian Army. He was aged about 40 years and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month at the time of incident. Hence, the claim petition had been preferred by the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased.

3. The opposite party-U.P.S.R.T.C. filed its written statement and contested the case. The U.P.S.R.T.C~ had alleged in the written statement that the driver of the offending bus was not rash and negligent at the time of accident. The appellant had further alleged in his written statement that the accident occurred due to the failure of its steering. The opposite party NO.2- Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation had not filed any written statement.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case and ultimately, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the offending bus fell into a gorge due to rash and negligent driving of its driver and due to which the deceased sustained the injuries on his person and died. The learned Tribunal had assessed the age of the deceased as 40-41 years. It was further held that he was earning a sum of Rs. 6,740/- per month. The learned Tribunal, after deducting 1/3rd income for personal expenses had fixed the dependency of the claimants as Rs. 4,493/- per month. The annual dependency assessed by the Tribunal was thus Rs. 4,493 x 12 = 53,916/-. The learned Tribunal had applied the multiplier of"15" and the amount of compensation was assessed Rs. 8,08,740/-. Apart this, Rs. 2000/- for last rites and Rs. 5000/- for love and affection were awarded to the claimants. Thus, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 8,15,740/- to the claimants as compensation. The appellant was directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the claimants within two months from the date of award. In default of payment of the compensation within the stipulated time, the claimants would also be entitled for interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.

5. Feeling aggrieved by this, the U.P. Road Transport Corporation-appellant has preferred the present appeal.

6. Heard Sri A.N. Sharma learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of the claimants. Perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accident occurred due to the failure of steering rod and it was a mechanical defect. It was further contended that the driver of the offending bus was not rash and negligent at the time of accident and the accident occurred due to vis-major. It was further contended that the quant