V. D. MISRA ( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of F. A. O. s No. 263-D of 1964 and No. 144-D of 1965, since they arise out of the same order. ( 2 ) MADAN Mohan Sarna, since deceased was going on a scooter-rickshaw on December 4, 1961, at about 2. 30 P. M. from the Old Secretariat towards Indraprastha College on Alipur Road. Between Old Secretariat and the Indraprastha College, there is a slope from both the sides and at its junction meets the Ring Road and another road coming from the side of Flagstaff. Before the scooter-rickshaw could approach the crossing, D. T. U. bus No. DLP 162, driven by Sarup Singh, came from the side of Indraprastha College. As it was approaching the crossing, the driver of the bus noticed a cyclist coming rashly from the side of Flagstaff Road, and in order to avoid running him down the driver suddenly swerved the bus towards hi extreme right and hit the scooter-rickshaw, was then its extreme left. The result was that Madan Mohan Sarna, who was sitting in the scooter-rickshaw, was thrown out and landed on the stone-blasts lying on the pavement. He died soon after. The bus after hitting the scooter-rickshaw, swerved again towards its left and stopped at a distance of about 320 feet from the place of the accident. Tirath Ram Bhasin, police inspector, who was coming on his motorcycle behind the scooter-rickshaw, in order to save himself suddenly applied brakes and fell on the pavement. The matter was immediately reported to the police which came on the spot. ( 3 ) THE appellants are the minor children of the deceased, Madan Mohan Sarna. They along with Raj Kumari Sarna, sister of the deceased, filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act asking for compensation of Rs. 1,50,000. 00. Sarup Singh, driver of the bus, along with Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the owner, were made the respondents. Hari Ram, driver of the scooter rickshaw, as well as the Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. , were also made the respondents. The last respondent was Inspector, Tirath Ram Bhasin. The respondents resisted this application. The driver of the bus as well as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, inter alia, denied that the accident had taken place because of the negligence of the driver. Ltd. , were also made the respondents. The last respondent was Inspector, Tirath Ram Bhasin. The respondents resisted this application. The driver of the bus as well as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, inter alia, denied that the accident had taken place because of the negligence of the driver. It was alleged that the driver of the scooter- rickshaw was negligent who had, at the approach of the bus, jumped from the moving scooter-rickshaw, and this resulted in the accident. It was pleaded that the driver had to swerve the bus towards his right side in order to save a cyclist, and in case the scooter-rickshaw driver had not jumped out, there would have been no accident. It was further pleaded that the deceased was thrown out of the scooter- rickshaw and that he was over-run by Inspector, Tirath Ram Bhasin, respondent. The driver of the scooter-rickshaw denied his negligence and pleaded that the accident had taken place because of the negligence of the driver of the bus. Tirath Ram Bhasin also denied his negligence. ( 4 ) THE following issues, relevant to this appeal, were framed : (1) "whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle DLP 162 belonging to respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 1 ? (2) Whether the motor vehicles of Delhi Transport undertaking are exempt from the provisions of Chapter 8 of Motor Vehicles Act, and what is its effect ? (3) Whether the claim is barred by time? (4) Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the fact that no notice Under Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corp. Act has been served on respondents 1 and 2 ? (5) Whether Hari Ram and Tirath Ram were guilty of contributing negligence and its effect ? (6) * * * (7) * * * (8) Whether the applicants of (application No. 18) are the legal heirs of deceased Madan Mohan Sarna ? (9) To what amount, if any, as compensation are the applicants entitled to receive in both the cases and from whom ? (10) Relief. " The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was the result of negligent driving of the bus driver and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of Hari Ram and Tirath Ram Bhasin respondents. He found that the respondents were entitled to a compensation of Rs. (10) Relief. " The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was the result of negligent driving of the bus driver and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of Hari Ram and Tirath Ram Bhasin respondents. He found that the respondents were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 28,900. 00. ( 5 ) F. A. O. No. 263-D of 1964 is the appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi challenging the findings and the compensation awarded to the claimants. F. A. O. No. 144-D of i965 is the appeal filed by the claimants asking for enhancement of the compensation. Mr. Deepak Chaudhary, learned counsel for the Delhi Transport Corporation, contends that the evidence on record shows that Tirath Ram Bhasin had run over the deceased by his motor cycle which resulted in the death of the deceased. He further submits that the bus was approaching the crossing at a low speed and the distance, at which the bus stopped, shows that the speed was low. The scooter-rickshaw driver was in fact negligent since he did not apply the brakes when he found the bus coming towards him. He also submits that the cyclist, who approached the bus rashly and negligently, should have been made a partly, and in any case the compensation awarded was very high and should be reduced. ( 6 ) MR. P. P. Malhotra, learned counsel for the claimants-applicants, contends that there was no contributory negligence by the driver of the scooter-rickshaw or of Tirath Ram Bhasin. The objection of non-joinder of the cyclist as a party to the proceedings was not raised by the Municipal Corporation and should not be allowed to be raised for the first time in the appeal. He lastly submits that the compensation awarded was very low and should be enhanced. ( 7 ) THE claimants had produced Lajpat Rai (A W. 7), Hari Ram (A. W. 11) and Inspector Tirath Ram Bhasin (A. W. 12) as eye-witnesses to the accident. Municipal Corporation had produced Manphool Singh (R. W. 1), Shri-Kishan, conductor of the bus (R W. 2), Syam Sunder (R W. 3) and Sarup Singh, bus driver (R. W. 4), regarding the accident. ( 8 ) LAJPAT Rai is a businessman and he was coming on his scooter, and near the place of accident his scooter had gone out of order. ( 8 ) LAJPAT Rai is a businessman and he was coming on his scooter, and near the place of accident his scooter had gone out of order. He had stopped there and was getting it repaired when he heard the creaks of the brakes and noticed that the D T. U. bus had swerved towards its extreme right and hit the scooter-rickshaw resulting in the deceased being thrown out on the pavement and subsequent death. He had noticed the motor-cyclist coming behind the scooter-rickshaw, who had with great difficulty saved himself, and went up the pavement on his left hand. According to him, the bus was going very fast and thedriver could not control the same. In Cross- examination he stated that he did not remember if he was looking after the repairs to the scooter. It was only when the bus applied its brakes that he noticed the accident. He denied the suggestion that the scooter-rickshaw driver had jumped out of the seat before the impact of the scooter- rickshaw with the bus. He was positive that he was sitting on his seat in the scooter- rickshaw at the time of the accident. He also denied that even the passanger, i. e. , the deceased, had jumped out of the scooter- rickshaw before the accident. He also denied that the motorcyclist had runover the deceased. This witness had appeared in the criminal court in this very accident and was a prosecution witness. He is an independent witness and no reason has been shown to disbelieve him. He has been rightly believed by the Tribunal. ( 9 ) HARI Ram, driver of the scooter-rickshaw, appeared as A. W. 11. He corroborated the version of Lajpat Rai. He stated that he was at distance of hardly two feet from the pavement when he was coming down the slope from the Old Secretariat. He had seen the bus coming from the opposite direction and at that time the bus was on its left. Immediately it had crossed the inter-section of the road, it suddenly swerved and came towards him and hit his scooter-rickshaw. In cross-examination he stated that a cyclist hit the body of the bus after it had suddenly swerved. He could not apply the brakes since the whole thing had happened suddenly, and before he could realise what was happening the bus had come and hit his scooter-rickshaw. In cross-examination he stated that a cyclist hit the body of the bus after it had suddenly swerved. He could not apply the brakes since the whole thing had happened suddenly, and before he could realise what was happening the bus had come and hit his scooter-rickshaw. He denied jumping out of the scooter-rickshaw. His statement in the circumstances of the case is very natural and he is supported by the independent witness like Lajpat Rai and there is no reason to disbelieve him. ( 10 ) THE next witness of the claimants was Inspector Tirath Ram Bhasin, who was following the scooter-rickshaw on his motorcycle. He had corroborated both the other eye-witnesses. He also denied the suggestion of the bus driver that the scooter-rickshaw driver had jumped off the scooter- rickshaw before the accident. He denied running over the deceased. He has also been believed, and, in my opinion. ( 11 ) SHRIKISHAN is the conductor of the bus and was examined as D. W. 2. He supported the version of the bus driver in his examination-in-chief stating that the scooter- rickshaw driver had jumped off the scooter- rickshaw and that the passenger had done the same. He admitted in cross-examination that he was distributing the tickets at the time of the accident in the bus. He also admitted that the bus driver did not slow down but swerved the bus on the right on the seeing the cyclist. He also admitted that the scooter-rickshaw had been hit on the other side of the road. He admitted that the passenger had fallen out of the scooter-rickshaw after the impact on the crushed stones lying on the pavement. According to him, the motor cyclist also fell on the Bajri and crushed stones lying there. It is thus clear from his evidence that the deceased had not jumped out of the scooter- rickshaw but was thrown out by the impact. He was admittedly distributing tickets and so could not have seen the manner in which the accident had taken place. He would have only realised the situation after the bus had suddenly swerved towards its right. If this witness is to be believed, then the bus stopped at the place of accident immediatly. He is believed by the site-plan prepared by Sardul Singh, Sub-Inspector (A. W. 5), who investigated the case. He would have only realised the situation after the bus had suddenly swerved towards its right. If this witness is to be believed, then the bus stopped at the place of accident immediatly. He is believed by the site-plan prepared by Sardul Singh, Sub-Inspector (A. W. 5), who investigated the case. The bus was found standing 320 feet from the place of accident on its left. The witness was, therefore, rightly disbelieved as regards the manner of the accident. ( 12 ) MANPHOOL Singh (R. W. 1) is a Zamindar and he would have us believe that he was travelling in the bus at the time of the accident. He has supported the version of the driver. According to him, the bus had slowed down while going down the slope of Indraprastha College and was being driven at a speed of 5 to 7 miles per hour. According to him also, the bus stopped at a distance of 2 to 3 paces from the place of the accident. Whereas in his examination-in-chief he deposed that he saw scooter-rickshaw in cross-examination he had stated that he did not see the driver in the scooter-rickshaw when he first saw the scooter-rickshaw before the impact. This contradictory statement show that he had not seen the accident at all and was out to help the driver for reasons best known to him. He was correctly disbelieved. ( 13 ) SIMILAR is the statement of Shyam Sunder (R. W. 3) He would have us believe that the scooter-rickshaw was not damaged after the accident, nor did he notice if the scooter-rickshaw driver had received any injuries. According to him, both the wheels of the motor cycle passed over the body of the scooter-rickshaw driver as well as of the deceased. He even did not notice any crushed stones lying near the pavement. He admitted in cross-examination that when he appeared as a witness in the criminal case, he stated that he could not see anything while sitting in the bus. His statement is nothing but a tissue of lies and had been correctly rejected by the learned Tribunal. ( 14 ) SARUP Singh, the driver, appeared as R. W. 5. He reiterated the stand taken by him. He admitted that from the bus stand of Indraprastha College he could see right up to the Flagstaff Road. His statement is nothing but a tissue of lies and had been correctly rejected by the learned Tribunal. ( 14 ) SARUP Singh, the driver, appeared as R. W. 5. He reiterated the stand taken by him. He admitted that from the bus stand of Indraprastha College he could see right up to the Flagstaff Road. He had, however seen the cyclist when he was at a distance of five feet from the bus. He would have us believe that after the deceased had jumped from the scooter-rickshaw before the impact he crawled a bit before he laid down. According to him, the scooter rickshaw was in the middle of the road from which both the driver and the passanger had jumped, and the bus stopped at a distance of 5 to 6 yards from the scooter-rickshaw. He admitted that he did not slow down the bus on entering the crossing If this witness was telling the truth then both the driver and the deceased are supposed to have jumped from the centre of the road and fallen right on the pavement. This big distance could not admittedly be covered by a jump as deposed to by this witness. He has been correctly disbelieved. ( 15 ) AT this stage it may also be pointed out that in the written statement the driver had not alleged that the passenger had jumped from the scooter-rickshaw before the impact. I do not see why this important fact which is in fact a material fact since the plea of contributory negligence is being raised, was overlooked. The absence of this allegation on the other handcorroborates the version of the witnesses produced by the claimants and contradicts the driver and his witnesses. The speed of the bus could not have been 7 or 10 miles an hour as deposed to by the witness since he could not stop immediately on seeing the cyclist and there was no necessity for the bus driver to swerve and to go to his extreme right. It was the duty of the driver of the bus to drive it at a speed at which he could have controlled the bus and brought it to a halt within a reasonable distance. The driver was admittedly not slowing down while nearing the crossing. It was the duty of the driver of the bus to drive it at a speed at which he could have controlled the bus and brought it to a halt within a reasonable distance. The driver was admittedly not slowing down while nearing the crossing. He also should have known that he had to come down to a slope to approach the crossing and if he was careful he could have easily noticed the cyclist coming from the side of the Flagstaff Road and approaching the crossing. His admission that he noticed the cyclist when he was hardly a few feet away, shows that he was negligent. ( 16 ) THE driver of the scooter-rickshaw cannot be said to be negligent in any manner, as he was going on his extreme left. He had noticed the bus approaching him on its left. He did not expect the bus to come to the place where he was and to knock him down. Simply because he did not apply his brakes, does not mean that he was careless or negligent in any manner. The turn taken by the bus was sudden and in any case he expected the driver of the bus to be in control of the same and not come to a place where the bus was not expected to be. On the other hand the bus had gone for a distance of 320 feet from the place of accident before it came to a stop on its left. The circumstances taken together show the sheer negligence of the bus driver who had lost control over the bus and was swerving the same to its right and left suddenly- instead of bringing it to a halt. ( 17 ) THE Municipal Corporation did not raise any objection regarding the nonjoinder of the cyclist which had hit the bus and made the same 10 swerve to its right before the learned Tribunal. I see no reason why I should allow the appellant to raise this contention for the first time in appeal. Moreover, the facts show that he was not a necessary party. Even if he was negligent, he was not responsible for the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased. ( 18 ) AS regards the quantum of compensation, I find that the learned Tribunal deducted a sum of Rs. 45. 00 towards the touring expenses. Moreover, the facts show that he was not a necessary party. Even if he was negligent, he was not responsible for the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased. ( 18 ) AS regards the quantum of compensation, I find that the learned Tribunal deducted a sum of Rs. 45. 00 towards the touring expenses. The deceased was being paid a sum of Rs. 25. 00 as T. A. and so there was no occasion to deduct Rs. 45. 00. I would thus add Rs. 20. 00 to the net loss of the dependants of Rs. 190. 00 per month found by the learned Tribunal. As regards the deduction of Rs. 20. 00 which was being paid as house rent, I would add back Rs. 10. 00 of the rent as a loss to the dependants. Thus I find that the net loss to the dependants was of Rs. 220. 00 per month, i. e. , Rs. 2640. 00 per annum. ( 19 ) THE learned Tribunal has allowed 16 years net income of the deceased as compensation. The learned counsel for the claimants contends that the deceased would have retired at the age of 58 years and would have thus earned for another 24 years and they should be granted compensation for all that period. I find that the claimants are the minor sons and daughter, of the deceased. Within 16 years every one of them would be in a position to earn. The daughter would have been married in the normal circumstances. Thereafter, they would not be getting any advantage from the earnings of the deceased. Had the claimant been a widow or other dependent depending entirely on the income of the deceased, the full period, during which the deceased would have normally earned, would have been taken into consideration. ( 20 ) ANOTHER factor, which has not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal, was that during the 16 years the deceased was likely to spend on his children some amounts on their marriage from his resources. I think a sum of Rs, 4000. 00 for the marriage expenses for each child would be a reasonable amount. The result is that the total loss to the dependants thus would be Rs. 58240. 00. The respondents having got the benefit of Rs. 1100. I think a sum of Rs, 4000. 00 for the marriage expenses for each child would be a reasonable amount. The result is that the total loss to the dependants thus would be Rs. 58240. 00. The respondents having got the benefit of Rs. 1100. 00 paid by the employers of the deceased, the loss would come to Rs. 57140. 00. Taking into consideration the acceleration of payment in lump sum, as also the imponderables of the claimants dying within the period of 16 years as well as the promotion which the deceased might have had if he continued to serve efficiently. I think a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 is the reasonable amount to which the dependants are entitled as compensation. ( 21 ) THE result is that F. A. 0. No. 263-D of 1964 is dismissed, and F. A. O. No. 144-D of 1965 is allowed, and the claimant-appellant s compensation is increased to Rs 50,000. 00 against Sarup Singh. driver, and Delhi Transport Corporation of Delhi respondents. They will also be entitled of costs.