The compensation awarded to the parents of a deceased person in a motor vehicle accident should include damages for loss of earnings during the lost years, calculated as the capitalised value of the deceased's income subject to relevant deductions.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the non-applicants against the order by which they have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,98,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to the applicants. There is no cross-objection.

( 2 ) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that bus No. MKH 7748 is in the ownership of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. Non-applicant No. 1 Govind prasad was its driver. On 29. 11. 1992 this bus was going from Chhindwara to Bina. At about 11. 30 p. m. this bus fell down in a nala near the culvert, 12 km. away from village Harrai. Deceased Dr. Pravin Bhola was travelling in this bus. He sustained grievous injuries. He died on 16. 12. 1992 at Nagpur on account of these injuries. The applicants' case is that the bus was being driven rashly" and negligently by its driver. Dr. Pravin Bhola was a Ph. D. in mathematics. He was a lecturer in the government Higher Secondary School at Chhindwara. His salary was Rs. 3,500 per month. He was unmarried. He was aged about 31 years. The applicants are his parents who claimed Rs. 11,50,000 as compensation.

( 3 ) THE case of the non-applicants was that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. A truck was coming from the opposite direction and the driver of the truck put on the headlights of the truck all of a sudden. There was a flood of light before the eyes of the bus driver. He tried to. avert the accident with the truck and in that process the bus fell down in the nala. It was further stated by the non-applicants that the compensation claimed by the applicants is excessive.

( 4 ) THE Claims Tribunal found on the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties that there was negligence on the part of the bus driver. That negligence caused the accident. The Tribunal further found that the income of the deceased was rs. 3,500 per month. He was aged 31 years. Tribunal assessed the dependency at rs. 1,000 per month and applied the multiplier of 15. The amount of compensation on the basis of multiplier system worked out to Rs. 1,80,000. Further a sum of rs. 13,000 was added towards the expenses incurred in the medical treatment of the deceased until his death and a sum of Rs. 5,000. was added for mental agony to the applicants. Thus, a total amount of rs. 1,98,000 was awarded as compensation with a direction to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the order up to the date of payment.

( 5 ) IN this appeal it is contended that (a)there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver and, therefore, compensation could not be awarded; (b) the applicants who were the parents of the deceased were maintaining themselves out of their own earnings and being not dependent upon the deceased were not entitled to any compensation; (c) the amount of compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and arbitrary. Point (a):

( 6 ) SO far as the appreciation of the evidence regarding negligence of the bus driver is concerned there is no error in the approach of the Tribunal. The applicant examined Dr. Mohanlal Sharma, PW 3, who was travelling in this bus when the accident took place. According to his evidence the bus driver was rash and negligent. On the other hand, Govind Vishwakarma, dw 1, the driver of the bus, came out with a story different from what was pleaded in the reply to the application for compensation. According to his evidence the accident took place because of failure of the brakes of the bus and brakes failed because of the negligence of the employees of the workshop. He does not subscribe to the theory which was set up in the pleadings. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that there was negligence on the part of the bus driver. Points (b) and (c):

( 7 ) THE parents are the 'legal representatives of the deceased' within the meaning of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988. The parents were specifically included as