C.M Nayar, J.:— This judgment will dispose of two appeals being F.A.O No. 134 of 1983 (D.T.C v. Sudershan Yadav) filed by Delhi Transport Corporation impugning the award dated 23.3.1983 passed by Mr. O.P Dwivedi, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The other appeal being F.A.O No. 173 of 1983 (Sudershan Yadav v. Delhi Transport Corporation) is directed against the same award and has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The respondents-claimants filed their claim petition under section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of death of their only son Ajit Singh in an accident on 10.5.1980 The deceased had boarded the bus No. DHP 2061 on that day from Inter-State Bus Terminus (I.S.B.T) at about 3 p.m It is stated that when the deceased Ajit Singh was still on the footboard, the driver of the said bus started the bus suddenly without ensuring that all the passengers safely boarded the same. The bus was at a fast speed and took a sharp turn as a result of which the deceased was swung out and his head struck against another bus No. DLP 1598. The deceased received serious head injuries as a result of which he died in the hospital. It is further alleged that Mohinder Singh who was the driver of bus No. DLP 1598 did not keep the vehicle in proper manner and was thus negligent. The accident occurred mainly due to rash and negligent act of driving on the part of the driver of bus No. DHP 2061, Narain Singh. The deceased was the only son of the respondents and had passed B.E (Mech) and was studying in M.B.A IInd year and after completion of his course, he would have easily not a job for the initial salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month. The deceased, it is stated, would have continued to provide financial help to the petitioners, who are his parents, at least for 30 years. On these pleadings, the respondents-claimants have claimed compensation for the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The appellants in their written statement took the plea that driver of the bus No. DHP 2061 started the bus from I.S.B.T bus stand when all the passengers had boarded the bus and none was left on the footboard and only after the conductor had given the signal to the driver to move, by blowing the whistle. The deceased came running and tried to board the moving bus but could not catch hold of the bus-rod on the rear gate, slipped and fell down and struck his head against the hard surface of the road as a result of which the deceased received fatal injuries. It was, accordingly, pleaded that the deceased was himself responsible for bringing the hazard on himself and the appellants were not liable to pay any compensation.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(1) Whether Ajit Singh Yadav received fatal injuries in accident caused on 10.5.1980 due to rash/negligent act of driving of bus No. DHP 2061 and bus No. DLP 1598 on the part of respondent Nos. 2 and 3?

(2) Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased?

(3) Whether the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased?

(4) To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled and from which of the respondents?

(5) Relief.

4. Issue Nos. 1 and 3 were taken up together. The learned Judge examined the evidence on record, including the evidence of the eyewitnesses. Tara Singh, FW 7 and Gopalji Rai, FW 11. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on record and attendant circumstances, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. DHP 2061 on the part of the driver and the deceased received fatal injuries in this accident. These issues were decided accordingly.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Judge has misread and misappreciated the evidence on record. He has referred me to the evidence of Shiv Gopal Saxena, Depot Manager, Khanpur Depot, DTC, PW 3, A.S.I Hari Singh, Delhi Police, PW 6, Constable Tara Singh, PW 7 and Gopalji Rai, PW 11. PW 7 and PW 11 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. He has contended that no damage was caused to the offending bus No. DHP 2061 and, therefore, it is evident that the deceased did not die in the manner as alleged in the claim petition. The presence of Gopalji Rai, PW 11, who was a friend of the deceased Ajit Singh was doubtful. He was introduced later and he was not aware of the manner in which the accident occurred. The driver of the bus, Narain Singh, RW 1, was examined and he has reiterated that the bus started from I.S.B.T for Malviya Nagar. The conductor gave whisde and he started the bus. When the bus passed about 10-15 yards some passengers gave the alarm that some person had fallen down. The driver stopped the bus then and there and came down and found one boy lying in the injured condition near the left rear portion of the bus near the gate. The injured was taken to hospital where he ultimately died. This witness further states that on enquiry he came to know that the deceased was trying to board the bus while running but could not get the grip of the handle and fell down. When he started the bus no passenger was standing on the footboard.

6. I have also perused the evidence on record and considered the findings of the trial Judge. PW 7, Tara Singh, deposed that he was on general patrolling duty at I.S.B.T and bus No. DHP 2061 started from I.S.B.T and all of a sudden attained high speed. He saw a passenger in the rear portion of the bus striking his head against another stationary bus DLP 1598 and fell down on the road. According to this witness, the driver of bus No. DHP 2061 did not leave sufficient space between his bus and the stationary bus as a result of which the head of the deceased was crushed between the two buses. He further stated that the accident occurred when the bus No. DHP 2061 was taking turn. The evidence of Gopalji Rai, PW 11, is more crucial. He was a friend of the deceased. He deposed that he had done B.E (Mechanical) from Roorkee University along with the deceased. After doing B.E, the witness joined I.I.T, Delhi, whereas the deceased joined M.B.A in Delhi University. According to him, on 10.5.1980, at about 3 or 3.15 p.m, he was coming along with Ajit Singh Yadav, the deceased, from Delhi University and they were going to I.I.T They went to I.S.B.T by bus and they had to board the bus of route No. 503 to go to I.I.T Gate. They boarded bus No. DHP 2061 from I.S.B.T and were standing on the rear portion of the bus which started at a fast speed and took sudden turn towards right in fast speed as a result of which they were swung out and the head of the deceased came between bus No. DHP 2061 and another bus which was stationary, as a result of which he received serious head injury. The deceased was removed to JPN Hospital in bus No. DLP 1598 and was declared dead in the hospital. The witness, thereafter, informed Professor Vishal Singh at Jawahar Lal Nehru University, who was the maternal uncle of the deceased. The testimony of two eyewitnesses, Tara Singh and Gopalji Rai, PW 7 and PW 11, depicts the true chain of events which led to the unfortunate accident. The findings of the learned Judge that the deceased was travelling in bus No. DHP 2061, which took a sudden turn to the right at a fast speed as a result of which the deceased Ajit Singh swung out of the bus and that the bus was going very close to another stationary bus and due to the sudden jerk, the head of the deceased came between the two buses and was crushed, inspire confidence. The next finding that the presence of blood stains and brain matter on the body of bus No. DHP 2061 can be explained only by accepting the theory that the head of the deceased was crushed between the two buses is unassailable. In case the deceased had slipped and fallen down on the ground and thus received injuries in the process, there was no occasion of blood stains and brain matter being found on the body of the bus. The version of the respondents that the deceased actually was not crushed between the two buses but was trying to board the moving bus and in that process he slipped and fell down and his head had struck against hard surface on the ground was correctly rejected. I see no infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Judge and the same are affirmed.

7. The Tribunal decided issue No. 2 in favour of the respondents-claimants and held that they were the parents of the deceased and the legal representatives.

8. The Tribunal then proceeded to decide issue No. 4 on the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the respondents and considered the evidence on record. Statements of PW 4, PW 9 and PW 14 were referred to. It is not denied that the deceased Ajit Singh had passed his B.E (Mech.) examination from Roorkee University and thereafter he joined M.B.A Course in Delhi University. He completed the first year of the said course. Earlier the deceased had received education up to Higher Secondary in Mayo College, Ajmer. On the basis of the education the prospects of the deceased were bright and he would have not a job with total emoluments of Rs. 3,000-3,500/- per month in the beginning itself. Lt. Col. J.P.S Yadav, PW 14, who is the father of the deceased, further stated that he was spending a sum of Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- per month on the study of his son from the days when the deceased was in Mayo College in Ajmer. Professor N.R Chatterjee, Dean, Faculty of Management Studies, Delhi University, PW 4, has deposed that he knew the deceased who was a student of 1st year in M.B.A Course. The deceased was a bright student and had passed the Engineering examination from Roorkee University. He would have completed his M.B.A Course after one year. The deceased not distinction marks in all the papers. He estimated the income of the deceased between Rs. 1,800/- and Rs. 2,000 per month as a probationer and as initial salary. R. Mukherjee, a Professor in the Department of Management Studies, Delhi University, PW 9, was examined and he reiterated the submissions made by Prof. N.R Chatterjee, PW 4. There does not seem to be any error in the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased Ajit Singh had a brilliant academic career and was a youngman of exceptional merit. He had already passed B.E (Mech.) from Roorkee University and obtained fifth position. The selection of the candidates for admission to M.B.A Course is made on the basis of the competitive examination and out of about 1,100-1,200 applicants only about 60 students were selected for admission to the course. The evidence produced in this regard has not been rebutted by the appellant. The Tribunal, however, assessed the earning capacity of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month.

9. The pecuniary loss to respondents-claimants on account of the untimely death of their only son Ajit Singh was then considered. The father of the deceased was highly placed and was Lt. Colonel in the army and had been spending a good deal of money on the education of his only son. In the circumstances, it was held that it could reasonably be inferred that the deceased would have looked after his parents very well and would not have caused any disillusionment in their old age. The learned Judge also noted that after a few years the deceased would have not married and would have spent, bulk of his earnings on his wife and children. The evidence on record was examined and the Tribunal fixed the figure of Rs. 1,000/- per month as loss to the respondents-claimants as well as loss to the estate of the deceased and by using a multiplier of 16 years the compensation awarded was assessed at Rs. 1,92,000/-. The respondents were also compensated for the loss of expectation of life to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- and the total compensation awarded was assessed at Rs. 2,02,000/-.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the quantum of compensation. He has argued that the deceased was also responsible for the accident and contributed in this regard. The deceased was, accordingly, liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 50 per cent. Therefore, the award in favour of the respondents-claimants has to be reduced by the said percentage. He has referred to the judgments, as reported, in Fateh Narain Hajela v. Rawal Singh, 1978 ACJ 345 (MP); State of Haryana v. J.N Joshi, 1979 ACJ 472 (Delhi); Dewan Hari Chand v. Municipal Committee of Delhi, 1981 ACJ 131 (Delhi); Surjit Pavitar Singh v. State of Punjab through Secretary Transport, 1990 ACJ 156 (P&H) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaranlata Das, 1993 ACJ 748 (SC). In these judgments different multipliers have been used such as 15 and 16 as considered appropriate in the facts and circumstances of each case.

11. In the present case, the deceased was a bright student of 24 years of age. He studied in the prestigious Institution of Engineering at Roorkee from where he qualified and thereafter he joined M.B.A Course in Delhi University. The evidence has been placed on record to indicate that he had a bright future and would be in a position to earn a sum of Rs. 2,500-3,000/- per month on completion of his course. Respondents-claimants are the parents of the deceased Ajit Singh and he was their only son. The precious life has been lost and there can be no compensation on this score. It is also relevant at the same time that one cannot lose sight of the practical realities of life. The parents often stay with their only son and are expected to be looked after by him in their old age. There was also likelihood of the deceased marrying in near future and his contribution and service to the parents would have been affected to a large extent but each relation has to be cared for and the parents do not fall in the category of that relationship which the children ignore in this country. The parents are often loved and cared for by their sons and are a source of strength in their old age. The facts of the present case highlight the unfortunate state of affairs where the parents have lost their only son who could be a source of strength to them emotionally as well as financially and he would have obviously sustained them in their lifetime. But the marriage brings with it additional responsibility of a wife and then children. The parents also are part of the family and their presence does not lose much significance. The Tribunal has also considered the history of longevity in the family and has adopted a multiplier of 16 years on the facts of the present case. He has also found a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month as a reasonable amount for the deceased to contribute for the parents which would represent the monthly loss to the respondents-claimants as well as loss to the estate of the deceased. The learned Judge has also noted that the assessment of earning capacity of the deceased was rather modest for a person for such Engineering and Management qualification which would enable him to find much more lucrative job. The present salary structure of similarly qualified persons is a pointer in this direction. There is vast increase in the salary and other perquisites. Therefore, the Tribunal was not oblivious of the fact that the deceased had a bright future ahead of him. In this situation, the monthly loss which was assessed at Rs. 1,000/- per month seems to be rather on the lower side. The Tribunal has not taken into account the future prospects of the deceased who was a bright student. It will, therefore, not be inappropriate to take a practical and liberal view of the prospects of the future and in estimating the gross income it will be reasonable to estimate the loss of dependency by having regard to the prospects or advancement in the future career, when there is evidence on record. This process was endorsed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC). The multiplier of 16, however, on the facts of the present case, is not impugned before me.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to accept that the deceased would have easily contributed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- which would represent monthly loss to the respondents and to the estate. Therefore, the annual amount would come to Rs. 24,000/-(Rs. 2,000/- × 12), which multiplied by 16 comes to Rs. 3,84,000/-. I, therefore, assess the amount, of damages in favour of the respondents-claimants at Rs. 3,84,000/-. This amount is in addition to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- which has been awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of expectation of life.

13. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation in case the appellant did not pay the awarded amount within two months. In view of the settled position of law, the respondents-claimants shall be entitled to interest on the awarded amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. The amount, which has already been paid, shall be taken into consideration to work out the amount of interest, which is now held to be payable to respondents-claimants.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal being F.A.O No. 134 of 1983 (Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sudershan Yadav) is dismissed and the appeal filed by the respondents-claimants being F.A.O No. 173 of 1983 (Sudershan Yadav v. D.T.C) is allowed to the extent indicated above. The claimants shall also be entitled to costs, which are quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. Appeal dismissed;

15. Claimants' appeal allowed.