JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—Claimants, Santokhi Devi (widow), Ram Prakash (Minor), Smt. Bahtu Devi (mother) and Shri Jai Ram (father), claimed compensation to the extent of rupees four lakhs for the death of Garja Ram, the only bread earner of the family, who died in an accident. The Tribunal, where the claim was tried, allowed a sum to the extent of Rs. 73,000 with interest at the rate of 4 per cent from the date of the order till date Shri Pohlo Ram, who was the driver of the truck, owned by the Public Works Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, has preferred this appeal against the award of the Tribunal, whereas no appeal has been moved by the State, Cross-objections No. 137 of 1983 have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation as well as the interest. 2. The facts, briefly, are that the deceased Garja Ram, aged 28 years, was employed as a driver in the office of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mandi. On 17-12-1981 he was travelling in bus No. HPS 4146. He got down from the bus at Delag Gala, from where he was to go, on foot, to his village. Truck No. HIM 9182, driven by Pohlo Ram, came from behind the bus and, while moving by the side of the bus, caused injuries to the deceased. The truck driver stopped the truck when alarm was raised by the passengers of the bus that the deceased had been run over by the truck. The deceased was given medical treatment at Ghumarwin, Bilaspur and Snowdon hospitals, but ultimately he died on 23-12-1981. The claimants say that the accident look place due to the gross negligence of the truck driver, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and, therefore, the respondents were liable to pay damages to the claimants for the death of the deceased. The case of the respondents is that although the accident had taken place and the deceased sustained injuries, however, the same was not on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. They say that the deceased was himself responsible since he did not care to move cautiously while crossing the road after getting down from the bus. They say that the deceased was himself responsible since he did not care to move cautiously while crossing the road after getting down from the bus. It was the deceased who did not listen to the horn blown by the driver of the truck being driven at a normal speed with care and caution. In these circumstances, the deceased could, at the last moment, avoid this accident in case he was careful. The driver has, in his separate reply, denied any responsibility for the accident and the compensation. He has thrown the whole burden on the deceased and has denied that he was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. Rather he says that the gradient of the road at that time was such that he was moving in second gear and before passing by the side of the bus, he not only blew horn but also used dipper while crossing the stationary bus with its lights on. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :— 1. Whether the petition is not maintainable on account of preliminary objection taken on behalf of respondent No. 3 ? OPR-3. 2. Whether the petitioners are related to the deceased Garja Ram as claimed in the petition ? OPP. 3. Whether the accident in question was a result of rash and negligent act on the part of respondent No. 3, the driver of the truck ? OPP. 4. If issue No. 3 is held in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioners are entitled ? OPP. 5. Relief. 4. The trial ended in favour of the claimants and it was held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck and therefore, the respondents were liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. Now the question to be seen is whether the findings and the extent of award is correct or calls for interference by this Court. Shri K.D. Sood, who appears for the appellant, has raised two points during the course of his submissions The first relates to the finding that the truck driver was responsible for the accident in question and the second to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. Shri K.D. Sood, who appears for the appellant, has raised two points during the course of his submissions The first relates to the finding that the truck driver was responsible for the accident in question and the second to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. On the other hand, Shri K.S. Patyal opposes these submissions and pleads for not only the dismissal of the appeal, but also for enhancement of compensation as well as the award of interest from the date of the application for the claim. I proceed to examine these submissions of the Counsel for the parties with reference to the evidence on record of this case and the principles applicable for the award of compensation in such like cases. 6. Shri Dharmu (PW 6) states that he saw the truck coming and passing by the side of the bus. It stopped at some distance from the bus when he saw that the body of the deceased was lying underneath the truck in the middle between the front of the him left wheels with serious bleading injuries. There was blood all around. The deceased had been dragged by the truck to some distance. It is not known whether the two Sub-Divisional Officers of the Public Works Department were present at the time of the accident. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was drunk at that time. 7. Sarup Chand (PW 10) was travelling in the bus on that day. He states that the deceased got down from the bus at Delag Gala. The bus had stopped on its proper side. The deceased got down from the bus and was crossing the road while going from the front side of the bus when the truck came from the back side of the bus and crushed the deceased under its front left wheel and thereafter dragged the body of the deceased to some distance. This truck even struck partly against the body of the bus while passing by it. The truck was being driven at an excessive speed. It blew no horn. The road was quite broad at the place of the accident. When the deceased got down, the back door of the bus was closed. This truck even struck partly against the body of the bus while passing by it. The truck was being driven at an excessive speed. It blew no horn. The road was quite broad at the place of the accident. When the deceased got down, the back door of the bus was closed. He denies the suggestion that the gradient of the road at the place of the accident was up-hill, although he admits that the gradient was coming after some distance from the place where the bus was standing. The deceased had just taken a step towards crossing the road when the truck struck against him. He also denies the suggestion that the truck was not going at a rash speed at that time. He admits that the lights of the truck and the bus were on at that time. He did not see the truck actually striking against the deceased but saw that he was being dragged by the tyres of the truck. 8. Shri Ravinder Prasher (PW 11) also states that the deceased got down from the bus when it stopped at Delag Gala and he wanted to cross the road when the truck, being driven at a very rash speed, came from behind the bus and struck against the deceased, crushing him underneath the wheels and his body was dragged to some distance before it stopped. The road at the place of the accident was quite wide and it must be about 30 feet. The truck hit some part of the bus as well while passing through it. 9. In rebuttal, a few witnesses have been examined. Shri Nand Lai Sharma (RW 1) was Sub-Divisional Officer, Barthi at that time. He claims to have travelled in the truck at that time alongwith another Sub-Divisional Officer, Garja Kandel, posted at Ghumarwin. He states that the bus was standing on the left side of the road when they came. The truck driver gave horn and used dipper as well. He was given pass by the driver of the bus by the use of dipper. The speed of the truck, according to him, was not more than 14 to 15 kms. The truck was stopped when the passengers of the bus raised alarm. The truck driver gave horn and used dipper as well. He was given pass by the driver of the bus by the use of dipper. The speed of the truck, according to him, was not more than 14 to 15 kms. The truck was stopped when the passengers of the bus raised alarm. He alongwith his colleague got down to see as to what had happened and they saw that the deceased was lying near the hind left wheel of their truck in an injured state. He was taken to the hospital and the police was informed. While he was being taken to hospital, the deceased told his parents that the injuries were not very serious and that he would be well very soon. He did not see anybody on the road when the truck passed by the side of the bus. He denied the suggestion that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. This is the nature of evidence adduced by the respondents to oppose the complaint of the claimants. 10. Perusal of the evidence brought on record of this case clearly establishes that the truck driver was negligent while driving his vehicle. Road at the place of the accident was quite broad and could easily accommodate two vehicles. The bus, while stationary, had kept its lights on. The truck had also its lights on. The site plan (Ex. RW 1/A) clearly indicates that the truck driver could very well save any one crossing the road. It is in evidence that the lights of both the vehicles, namely, the truck as well as the bus, were on. Had the driver of the truck been a little careful, he could have easily seen the deceased trying to cross the road. Secondly, he could have easily anticipated that passengers might be getting down from the bus which was coming ahead of him and it had stopped only for the purpose of enabling the passengers to get down. In these circumstances, he should have been quite vigilent to move, taking all precautions, but he appears to have done nothing. Some of the witnesses have said that the deceased had taken 4/5 steps towards the mittle of the road and, if so, the truck driver could very easily see him and stop the vehicle to save the accident. In these circumstances, he should have been quite vigilent to move, taking all precautions, but he appears to have done nothing. Some of the witnesses have said that the deceased had taken 4/5 steps towards the mittle of the road and, if so, the truck driver could very easily see him and stop the vehicle to save the accident. On the other hand, in case the other version is seen, the truck passed so closely by the side of the bus that it not only crushed the deceased but also hit some part of the bus. But in either of the two situations, as aforesaid, the rashness and the negligence on the part of the truck driver is quite evident and is established. In these circumstances, the submission of Shri K.D. Sood that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, cannot, at all, be accepted and it has been rightly concluded and held by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record, that the truck driver was responsible for the accident in question. 11. Coming to the payment of compensation, Ram Asra Bassi (PW 5) states that the deceased was drawing Rs. 593-90 p. as total salary out of which he was contributing Rs. 50 towards the General Provident Fund and his age was 28 years and had put in two years service at the time of his death. The Tribunal has deducted Rs. 197.96 (being the l/3rd of the total salary) towards the personal expenses of the deceased. This deduction appears to be quite inadequate since the petitioner was living at Mandi while in service. Therefore, it is not possible for any one to live on Rs. 197-96 p. The reasonable amount can be at least Rs. 250 per month. The deceased was contributing Rs. 50 towards the General Provident Fund also. Then the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13 years purchase which, in view of the age of the deceased, is not at all proper. The appropriate multiplier in this case, looking to the factors, namely, the age of the deceased and the longevity in the family, should be 17 years. Then Rs. 3,000 are also payable by way of loss of expectancy of life. In this way the total compensation payable (346 x 12 x 17 - 3,000) comes to Rs. 73,584 and not Rs. 73,000 awarded by the Tribunal. Then Rs. 3,000 are also payable by way of loss of expectancy of life. In this way the total compensation payable (346 x 12 x 17 - 3,000) comes to Rs. 73,584 and not Rs. 73,000 awarded by the Tribunal. Further the claimant will be entitled to interest on the total amount of compensation at the rate of 8% from the date of the claim application. 12. The appeal (No. F.A.O. 140 of 1982) is accordingly dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent aforesaid. The Cross-objections (No. 137 of 1983) are allowed only to the extent and in the terms aforesaid. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed. -