When the Court or Tribunal applies multiplier method for calculating compensation in a motor accident case, no deduction is permissible on account of lump sum payment as it takes care of all heads.

( 1 ) STATE is aggrieved of the award dated 1-7-92 passed in Motor Accidents Claims Case No. 40/87 by First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagadalpur, Baster has filed this appeal u/s. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

( 2 ) THE circumstances giving rise to this appeal are thus : Deceased Vyas Narayan aged 35 years, employed as Sub-Engineer, drawing monthly pay of Rs. 1728. 85 was going on his motor-cycle No. M. B. Y. 4108 with a pillion rider one Bholaram Awasthy, from the opposite direction a Jeep No. M. P. P. 3979 owned by State, driven by appellant No. 2 was coming on the fateful day i. e. 26-3-1987 which on turning did not remain in control due to bursting of tyre and failure of breakes and dashed with the motor-cyclist, as a result of which he died instantaneously. The legal representatives of the deceased filed an application u/s. 110a of the Motor-Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the 'act') to claim compensation of Rs. 3,08,000. The claim was contented on the ground that the accident was inevitable due to bursting of tyre and failure of breaks, therefore, no liability could be fastened on the appellants. In support of the defence, the appellants examined appellant No. 2 who was driving the Jeep at the relevant time. No. mechancial expert was examined or other evidence was adduced by the appellants to establish that the tyre was in road worthy condition. The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties held that the accident was caused due to sole rash and negligent act of the Jeep driver. To award compensation the Tribunal estimated thedependency at Rs. 1000 per month, yearly Rs. 12,000, applying the multiplier of 16 worked out the compensation of Rs. 1,92,000, in that an amount of Rs. 5000 was added for pain and sufferings. Out of Rs. 1,97,000 a deduction of 20% towards lump sum payment and uncertainties of life was made, thus, Rs. 1,57,600 was awarded as compensation with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till payment.

( 3 ) SHRI A. S. Gaharwar, Panel Lawyer for the State submitted that the accident was inevitable as the tyre bursted because of a sharp stone came under it. On this appellant No. 2 applied brakes, but, the brakes also failed due to bursting of tyre. In the circumstances the vehicle did not remain in control and dashed with the motor-cyclist. Learned counsel further submitted that the motor-cyclist also contributed to the accident as iinstead of blowing the horn, the motor-cyclist did not stop the vehicle and proceeded in the direction of the Jeep resulting in collision.

( 4 ) SHRI H. B. Agrawal learned counsel for the claimants submitted that this Court in appeal would not interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal based on appreciation of oral evidence. No perversity or any special feature has been pointed out which has escaped the notice of the Tribunal. The appellants have not led any evidence to establish the plea that the tyre which got burst was in a road worthy condition. It is well settled that when such a plea is raised, the burden lies on the owner/driver of the vehicle to establish the defence. Counsel cited a decision of the Supreme Court in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishana Ramchandra Nayan, AIR 1977 SC 1248 and decisions of this Court in Sabira Begum v. Raipur Transport Co. Limited , Raipur, 1986 ACJ 713, Jamila Begum v. Raipur Transport Co. Pvt. Limited , Raipur; 1986 ACJ 837 and Sewaram alias Sewan v. Naphe Khan alias Asgar Beg ; 1987 ACJ 354. In support of cross-objections to enhance compensation learned counsel submitted that when multiplier method is adopted for working but compensation, it takes care of all heads, hence, no lump sum deduction could be made. A decision of this Court in Fizabai v. Nemichand , 1993 JLJ 437 was pressed into service.

( 5 ) HAVING heard counsel for the parties and on going through the record we are of the opinion that the appeal has no merit while cross-objections