1. Ajaib Singh working as Inspector, Co-operative Milk Supplies, Dhuri, died in a motor vehicle accident on 14-11-1981 at about 10.30 A.M. near the outer gate of Bus Stand, Sangrur. His widow Smt. Harjit Kaur, two minor sons and one daughter, namely, Jatinder Pal Singh, Rupinder Singh and Satwinder Kaur and his old widowed mother Smt. Kartar Kaur filed a claim application under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the 'Act') in the court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sangrur claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- from respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who are the owner and driver of Bus No. PBS-3271 involved in the accident and from respondent No. 3 with which the said bus was insured. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the allegations of the parties framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the applicants are the legal representatives of the Ajaib Singh deceased?

(2) Whether the Ajaib Singh died in an accident and the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PBS 3271 by Gurdial Singh respondent?

(3) To what compensation, if any, are the applicants entitled to and from whom?

(4) Relief.

2. Though issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the applicants and it was held that they are the legal representatives of Ajaib Singh deceased, issue No. 2 was decided against them. The learned Tribunal held that the evidence produced by the applicants failed to prove that Ajaib Singh died as a result of accident in which Bus No. 3271 was involved and which was being driven rashly and negligently by Gurdial Singh, respondent No. 2. Under issue No. 3 the learned Tribunal simply held that since Ajaib Singh was not proved to have died because of an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus No. 3271 by Gurdial Singh, respondent, therefore the applicants were not entitled to claim any compensation and quantum of compensation was not determined by the learned Tribunal. As a consequence, the claim application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide its award dated 8-4-1982. The widow, the minor children and the widowed mother of Ajaib Singh deceased whose claim application failed before the Tribunal, have filed the present appeal in this Court.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have closely scrutinised the pleadings, the evidence and the documents on the record. I am constrained to hold that the learned Tribunal went completely off at a tangent and erroneously dismissed the claim application of the appellants. The fact that Ajaib Singh was crushed under the front wheel of the bus near the outer gate of the Bus Stand Sangrur at about 10.30 A.M. is not disputed. In fact, the presence of Amrit Lal Joshi, P.W. 2 who according to his statement was accompanying Ajaib Singh on the fateful day near the place of accident cannot at all be ruled out. Soon after the accident this witness made a statement before the police which had reached the spot and on its basis the First Information Report, Exhibit P1 was recorded by the police at 10.40 a.m. His statement in the. court is consistent with what he stated before the police in the First Information Report, Exhibit P1. According to him, on 14-11-1980 at about 10 or 10.30 a.m. that he and Ajaib Singh deceased were coming from his house and were going to the house of the witness via Bus Stand Sangrur. When they reached near the outer exit gate of Bus Stand, Sangrur, he stopped to light a cigarette and Ajaib Singh went ahead of him. Immediately there was a hue and cry that a person was run over by the bus. He saw that Ajaib Singh was lying on the ground and his head was crushed by the right front wheel of Bus No. 3271 of Tochi Transport Company, respondent No. 1. Gurdial Singh was the driver of that bus. He could identify Gurdial Singh. The Police reached the spot and he gave his statement to the police. He did not go to the Police Station to lodge the report. Despite lengthy cross-examination, his statement remained unshattered. He admitted in the cross-examination that the place where he stopped for lighting the cigarette was at a distance of about 10 yards from the outer exit gate of the Bus Stand. Ajaib Singh had entered the bus-stand when he was taking puffs. The outer wall of the bus-stand is about 7 feet high and a person inside the bus-stand is not visible from outside. At the outer exit gate of the bus stand every bus stops while leaving the bus-stand to pay adda fee. He reached the spot within one or two minutes after there was a hue and cry. By the time he reached the spot 60/70 persons had collected there. No doubt he stated that when he reached the spot the driver of the bus was on the ground and was not sitting on the driver's seat. But this hardly affects the substance of his evidence. Raghbir Singh, P.W. 3 Sukhvinder Singh, P.W. 5 and Dhawa Ram, P.W. 8 who had also witnessed the occurrence were examined before the learned Tribunal. Raghbir Singh, P.W. 3 stated that the bus struck against Ajaib Singh and his head was crushed. The driver of the bus did not blow any horn. Dhawa Ram P.W. 8 while corroborating the statement of other eye-witnesses deposed that Bus No. PBS 3271 was standing near the driver outer gate of the Bus Stand for payment of adda fee. Its engine was working. The conductor of the bus gave a whistle and the driver started the bus. It started with jerk and struck against Ajaib Singh. Dr. K.C. Goyal, P.W. 1 produced a copy of the post mortem report Exhibit P. 2 which records that all the bones of the skull of Ajaib Singh were crushed. He deposed that the nature of injuries showed that it could be the result of an accident with a motor vehicle. To ward off their liabilities, the respondents produced one Kapur Singh, R.W. 1, who stated that it was he who had started the bus at 10.45 a.m. and had stopped the bus at a distance of 2 Karams from the exit gate and asked the conductor to pay the adda fee. Shamsher Singh was the conductor of the bus on that day. He saw that one person was lying on the ground in front of the exit gate. He thought that he was drunk. So be blew horns. When that person did not get up the witness got down from the bus and went near the person and found that he was dead. This statement appears to be ridiculous. Ajaib Singh who was crushed under the wheel of the bus as is evident from the post mortem report must be pleeding profusely. The statement of Kapur Singh, R.W. 1 that when he saw the person lying on the ground in front of the exit gate he thought that he was drunk does not inspire confidence. When he saw the person lying on the ground, he must have also noticed the injuries on the person and the blood on the ground. It appears that Kapur Singh has been introduced only with a view to dislodge the statement of the eye-witnesses that Kapur Singh who was admittedly the driver of the bus in fact drove the bus rashly and negligently causing the death of Ajaib Singh. Interestingly, Shamsher Singh, conductor of the Bus, has not been examined by the respondents. Gurdial Singh driver, respondent No. 2, appeared as R.W. 3. His statement is simply a cock and bull story. He admits that he is a driver in respondent No. 1, transport company and drives Bus No. PBS 3271. He stated that his residence is at Bhawanigarh. Bus No. PBS 3271 is plies on Sangrur-Samana route. It leaves Sangrur at 11.05 A.M. On 14-11-1980 he reached Bus Stand Sangrur from Bhawanigarh at 11.00 A.M. He was to take the bus towards Samana at 11.05 A.M. Before he reached the bus-stand Kapur Singh driver had taken the bus because the police had asked the bus-drivers to take away the buses before 11.00 A.M. He did not drive Bus No. 3271 on that day. When he reached the Bus Stand the police asked who was the driver of Bus No. 3271 and when he told that he was the driver he was involved in a false case. There is no doubt left in the mind that Gurdial Singh made this statement simply to save himself from civil and criminal liability for his rash and negligent driving of the bus. In spite of the fact that the respondents tried to make out a case that Ajaib Singh died after being run over by a vehicle other than Bus No. PBS 3271 they could not point out to any other vehicle nor they could adduce any other evidence in this regard. The police moved in the matter soon after the accident and Gurdial Singh, driver, was arrested. First Information Report, Exhibit P1 was recorded after Amrit Lal Joshi, P.W. 2 made his statement. The learned Tribunal by referring to the statement of Amrit Lal Joshi. P.W. 2 made where he replied to a question that while standing outside the Bus Stand he could not see a parson inside because the wall of the bus stand is 7 feet high failed to notice that according to the witnesses on both sides Ajaib Singh was crushed under the wheel of the vehicle at the outer gate of the bus stand and not inside the bus stand. The learned Tribunal again tried to speculate that when after paying the adda fee the bus started, the starting of its engine must have made some noise which would have made Ajaib Singh deceased aware of the bus in front of which he was moving. This speculation again in misplaced. Dhawan Ram P.W. 8 has stated in clear terms that when the bus was stand still near the outer gate of the bus stand for payment of adda fee by its conductor the engine of the bus was on. It is thus clear that the driver of the bus without noticing that there was a man moving just in front of the bus rashly and negligently put the bus off the clutch and in the gear and crushed Ajaib Singh under the wheel of the vehicle. There is, thus, abundant evidence on the record that Ajaib Singh died when he was crushed under the front wheel of bus No. PBS 3271 owned by respondent No. 1 and which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver Gurdial Singh, respondent No. 2. I, therefore, hold that issue No. 2 has been proved and reverse the finding returned under this issue by the learned Tribunal.

4. Now coming to the quantum of compensation payable to the appellants, it may be mentioned, that Charan Dass, PW 6 Superintendent, in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Malerkotla, has stated that Ajaib Singh deceased was an employee in his Department. He was posted at Dhuri as Inspector, Co-operative Milk Supplies, Dhuri. He was permanently residing at Sangrur. The witness brought the service record of the deceased and stated that according to the last pay bill he was drawing in all Rs. 692/- per month as his salary. The date of birth of Ajaib Singh according to the record was 3-1-1942. Smt. Harjit Kaur PW 7, the widow of the deceased stated that she and her three minor children Jatinder-pal Singh, aged 13 years, Satvinder Kaur, aged 11 years and Rupinder Singh, aged 9 years besides Kartar Kaur, the widowed mother of the deceased, were dependent on him. She stated that she is aged 32 years. In my view, out of the salary of Rs. 692/- Ajaib Singh must be spending Rs. 192/- on himself and paying at least Rs. 500/- per month for the livelihood of his dependents who are appellants before me. His age on the date of accident was less than 39 years. I, therefore, assess the loss to the appellants because of the death of Ajaib Singh in the vehicle accident at Rs. 500/- per month, i.e. Rs. 6,000/-per annum and by applying multiplier of 16,1 assess the compensation payable to the appellants at Rs. 96,000/-.

5. Mr. L.M. Suri, Advocate, appearing for the Insurance Company respondent No. 3 and Mr. Annupam Gupta, Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 contended that as per the statement of Charan Dass, PW 6 on the death of the Ajaib Singh, the widow of the deceased has been granted a pension at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. An ex-gratia grant of Rs. 11,700/- has also been sanctioned by the department in which Ajaib Singh was employed for his widow. About Rs. 3,000/- was lying in the Provident Fund Account of Ajaib Singh. In my view, these amounts paid to the widow of the deceased cannot be taken into account so as to reduce the quantum of compensation payable to the appellants. Copy of the Insurance Policy, Exhibit R. 1 establishes that Bus No. PBS 3271 owned by respondent No. 1 was insured with respondent No. 3 on the date of accident. Therefore, respondent No. 3 is liable to the extent in terms of the policy.

6. Consequently, I allow this appeal, set aside the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur any by accepting the claim application of the appellants direct payment of Rs. 96,000/- as compensation to the appellants on account of death of Ajaib Singh due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus No. PBS No. 3271 by respondent No. 2. The Insurance Company, Respondent No. 3 shall pay Rs. 50,000/- out of the amount of compensation assessed above. The balance amount of Rs. 46,000/- shall be paid by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which shall be their joint and several liability. The respondents shall be further liable to pay interest on the amount of compensation for which they have been respectively held liable at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the accident i.e. 14-11-1980, till the date of payment of the amount. The appellants shall also get costs of this appeal which are assessed at Rs. 500/-.