Usha Mehra ( 1 ) DELHI Transport Corporation (hereinaftercalled dtc ) has sought for the reversal of the judgment of the Motoraccidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the tribunal ) dated 2 2/02/1980. ( 2 ) THE admitted facts on record are that on 5/02/1993 atabout 3. 25 p. m. the deceased Kartar Singh was travelling in private bus No. D. L. P. 3677 under DTC operation. While the said bus was taking a turntowards the Red Fort and entered the crossing of Netaji Subhash Marg nearchhatta Rly. Pul, at that time DTC Bus No. D. L. P. 73 came from Jamunabridge side and entered the crossing. In the process DTC bus No. D. L. P. 73 hit the left side of bus No. D. L. P. 3677. On account of the collision of boththe buses, the deceased who was at the rear gate of bus No. D. L. P. 3677 received grievous injuries. He fell on the road and became unconscious. Hewas removed to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. Thedeceased was 18 years old, a student of 11th class and unmarried at the time of the accident. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was the driver of DTC bus who struck the rear portion of the bus with the private bus comingto the Kauria Bridge side. The bus No. "d. L. P. 3677 had already crossedmajor portion of the crossing. That the accident occurred due to rash andnegligent driving on the part of the driver of the DTC bus No. D. L. P. 73. Itis against this conclusion of the Tribunal that the present appeal has beenpreferred, challenging the said conclusion, inter alia, on the grounds that the Tribunal erroneously placed reliance on the FIR rather than the sworn testimony of Public Witness 7. The decision of the Tribunal is against claimant s own casei. e. was composite negligence. Similarly the Tribunal without discussing theevidence placed on record awarded the compensation. ( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the claim petition, the claimant had attributed thenegligence to the driver of both the buses. They had pleaded that the accident was on account of the composite negligence of the driver of the bus No. D. L. P. 73 as well as bus No. D. L. P. 3677. ( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the claim petition, the claimant had attributed thenegligence to the driver of both the buses. They had pleaded that the accident was on account of the composite negligence of the driver of the bus No. D. L. P. 73 as well as bus No. D. L. P. 3677. The claimant had asserted thatdeceased Kartar Singh died due to the composite negligence of respondents1 to 4 and they were vicariously liable. DTC in its written statement haddenied that there was any negligence on the part of its driver. However, nowritten statement on behalf of its driver Sant Lal has been filed. Exceptdtc and the New India Assurance Co. (respondent No. 5) no other respondent filed the written statement. ( 4 ) ADVERTING to the evidence the testimony of Shri Chander Bhan (P. W. 7), is very relevant. He was on duty at chowk Chhatta Rly. Pul whenthis accident took place. His testimony supports the version that the collisionbetween the two buses was due to the composite negligence of both thedrivers. According to him the bus No. D. L. P. 3677 was on route No. 18. It was coming from Kauria Bridge side at a fast speed. It took turn towardsright front side, at that very time the DTC bus No. D. L. P. 73 was also coming from Shahdara side. It colluded with the other bus. He was controllingthe traffic at that time. His statement was recorded at that time. Accordingto him the DTC bus was not driven at a fast speed. It had crossed the redlight. His testimony that the private bus was coming in a fast speed or thatthe DTC bus was being driven slowly, does not prove that the negligence wasthat of the driver of bus No D. L. P. 3677 or of the DTC bus. Rather itshows that the driver of both the buses were not keeping proper outlookwhile entering the crossing. They were negligent. They did not care norensured the safety of the passengers. This fact further find support from thetestimony of Diwan Singh (P. W. 9 ). He is stated to be another eye witnessof the occurrence. According to him the bus coming from Shahdara i. e. thedtc bus actually colluded with the private bus. They were negligent. They did not care norensured the safety of the passengers. This fact further find support from thetestimony of Diwan Singh (P. W. 9 ). He is stated to be another eye witnessof the occurrence. According to him the bus coming from Shahdara i. e. thedtc bus actually colluded with the private bus. Shri Chander Bhan (P. W. 7)stated that the private bus was driven very fast whereas according to Diwansingh (P. W. 9) it was the DTC bus coming from Shahdara side actuallycolluded with the private bus. This shows that the accident happened so suddenly that Diwan Singh who was travelling in the private bus thought thatit was the DTC bus which had hit the private bus. The traffic constable onduty, on the other hand found the driver of the private bus at fault becauseaccording to him it was being driven in a very fast speed. The statement ofchander Bhan read with the statement of Diwan Singh clearly points out thatthe accident took place because of the composite negligence of the drivers ofthe DTC bus as well as of the private bus. Unfortunately both the drivershave not appeared in the witness box. Court had no opportunity to heartheir version of the accident. Hence adverse inference against both of themhas to be drawn. Had they been produced, correct picture would have comeon record. In the absence of their version, one or the other driver alonecannot be held guilty of rash or negligent driving. Accident took place infeb. , 1973 whereas according to R1 W1 Shri Ranjit Singh, the DTC driverleft the services of the DTC in the year 1974. By this time the claim petitionhad already been filed by the claimant impleading the DTC as one of therespondent. DTC permitting its driver to go away and leave its job withoutobtaining his address shows that DTC officials were either not serious incontesting this case or were aware that its driver was equally negligent. Similarly in the absence of the private bus driver inference can be drawn thathad he been produced if would have proved that he was also negligent indriving bus No. D. L. P. 3677. Infact from the evidence available. on therecord it can safely be inferred that both the drivers were negligent. The Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the negligence was solely that ofthe DTC bus driver. Infact from the evidence available. on therecord it can safely be inferred that both the drivers were negligent. The Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the negligence was solely that ofthe DTC bus driver. The evidence of Public Witness 7 as well as Public Witness 9 does notsupport the conclusion of the Tribunal that it was the driver of the DTC buswhich in fact hit the bus No. D. L. P. 3677. Having held that there was acomposite negligence of both the drivers, the question arises who will beliable ? Since both the joint tort feasors are before this Court therefore theliability will be joint and several. ( 5 ) SO far as the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is concerned,claimants have also challenged the same by filing cross-objection on theground of inadequacy. The father of the deceased proved on record thatdeceased was a good student and was studying in 11th class. Besides studyinghe was helping his father in the business of milk dairy. The factum ofdeceased helping his father in his business is proved by the testimony ofshri Kanhar (PW. 3), Shri Ram (P. W. 4), Har Lal (P. W. 6), Shahjahan T. G. T. (P. W. 10) and 0m Parkash Verma (P. W. 11 ). Public Witness 10, Shri Shahjahanproved the date of birth of the deceased Kartar Singh as 15/01/1953. Shri Kanhar Lal Public Witness 3 proved that beside being a student of 11th class, thedeceased used to look after seven buffaloes and had been assisting his fatherin running a milk dairy. He used to supply milk at Badar Pur to Singhram Dairy and Sons. That by doing this work he was getting from his fatherabout Rs. 500. 00 p. m. Similarly Singh Ram Public Witness 4 by his testimony provedthat he has been running a milk dairy and that deceased used to supply himmilk The father of the deceased appearing as Public Witness 11 testified that his sonwas helping him in the milk dairy business. Deceased was good in studiesas well as in extra carricular activities. He produced certificates of meritswhich were issued in deceased s favour. He also proved the langivity in thefamily. After the death of Kartar Singh, his father stopped the milk dairybusiness. Decaased was rendering assistance in monetary help worthrs. 500. 00 p. m. On this statement of Public Witness II there is no cross-examination. He produced certificates of meritswhich were issued in deceased s favour. He also proved the langivity in thefamily. After the death of Kartar Singh, his father stopped the milk dairybusiness. Decaased was rendering assistance in monetary help worthrs. 500. 00 p. m. On this statement of Public Witness II there is no cross-examination. ( 6 ) SO taking these factors into consideration, I am of the view thatthe Tribunal assessed the dependency income at very low rate. Even alabourer in 1973 was not getting Rs. . 250. 00 per month and here a boy of 18years old beside being a student of 11th class was also helping his father inhis milk dairy business which fact is apparent from the testimony of Public Witness 3,4, 6 and 11. Therefore when the father testified that his son was giving theassistance of atleast Rs. 500. 00 per month he had in substance talking aboutthe service which his son was rendering in the business of his father. Thefather not only lost the affection and company of his eldest son but also lostthe service of his son. Therefore the Tribunal ought to haveconsideredbeside the financial loss, a loss of service, affections and company. Takinginto consideration the loss of service to the father in his business which business the father had to close down on the death of Kartar Singh and loss offinancial help which if Kartar Singh had been alive could not have been lessthan Rs. 300. 00 per month. The deceased was 18 years old at the time of hisdeath. His father, Om Parkash was 43 years when he appeared in the witnessbox on 19/09/1979. So the deceased would have also lived another30 years. Taking the dependency income to be Rs. 300. 00 per month theannual income would come to Rs 3,600. 00 (i. e. Rs. 300 x 12==3,600 ). Thelife expectancy is taken to be 70 years but in the family of the deceasedlongivity of family life has not been proved. However, taking into consideration the age of the father it can be expected that the deceased would havealso lived upto atleast that age. Hence the multiplier of 25 years wouldmeet the end of justice. ( 7 ) FROM the avove discussion it is apparent that the negligence wagcomposite. However, taking into consideration the age of the father it can be expected that the deceased would havealso lived upto atleast that age. Hence the multiplier of 25 years wouldmeet the end of justice. ( 7 ) FROM the avove discussion it is apparent that the negligence wagcomposite. The question now for consideration is whether the Insurancecompany of the private bus No. D. L. P. 3677 is liable to the amount awarded by this Court ? Mr. Paul appears for the Insurance Company, respondentno. 5 contended that the deceased was a passenger of a private bus operatedunder the DTC operation. Though the said bus was insured with respondent No. 5 i. e. the New India Insurance Company but as per the policy themaximum liability of the Insurance Company for one passenger is Rs. 5. 000. 00only. The company had charged Rs. 318. 00 as premium for covering 53passengers i. e. Rs. 6. 00 had been charged per passenger. This Court cannotmake the Insurance Company liable beyond the extent of R. 5,000. 00 perpassenger. I am afraid these arguments are not born out from the record ofthis case. These legal submissions have to be substantiated by the evidencewhich has come on record and which I am going to discuss hereunder willprove that this legal submission cannot be substantiated on the basis of therecord available. Ex. R. 1is the insurance policy which the respondent triedto prove through the testimony of R. 5. W. 1 Shri B. R. Kapur, Assistant, Newindia Insurance Company. He admitted that Ex. R. I is not a carbon truecopy of the original. He admitted that the original policy consisted of number of pages with endorsement and those endorsements are not there on theoffice copy produced by him as Ex. R. 1. He also could not tell what werethe terms and conditions of the original policy. He had to admit that R. 1is not the exact true copy of the office copy because with the Ex. R. 1endorsement had not been attached. He had also to admit that in the officecopy additional premium for covering risk to the passenger was also charged and that it was a comprehensive policy also, because of charging additional premium. But in Ex. R. I this is not so reflected and other endorsements which were there in the original had also not been incorporated inr. 1. Hence the contention of Mr. But in Ex. R. I this is not so reflected and other endorsements which were there in the original had also not been incorporated inr. 1. Hence the contention of Mr. S. K. Paul, Counsel for respondent/insurance Company that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 5,000. 00 is belied from this admission of R. 5. W. 1 Shri B. R. Kapur when headmitted that under this policy additional premium for covering risk tothe passenger was also charged, and therefore, this policy became a comprehensive policy, shows that there was no limit to the liability of the passengeron account of any accident. Having admitted that the additional premiumwas charged the question of limited liability comes to an end and this couldhave been found in the endorsement attached with the original policy whichhas been deliberately withheld from this Court when Ex. R. 1 was produced. Had those endorsements been brought on record it would have been amplyproved how much additional premium was charged with the result that covering the risk of passengers to an unlimited extent. In view of this specificadmission of Mr. B. R. Kapur, R. 5. W. I the argument of the Counsel forthe Insurance Company has no force and I am accordingly hold that theliability of the Insurance Company in this case was unlimited because it hadcharged additional premium to cover the risk of the passenger to an unlimitedextent. ( 8 ) IN view of my above discussion I set aside the award of thetribunal and hold that the negligence was composite of both the DTC bus aswell as of private bus and they are both jointly and severally liable and thatthe liability of the Insurance Company is unlimited and that will be liable topay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 90,000. 00. On this amount of compensation the amount already received will be adjusted against this amount on theenhanced amount also the petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate of6% from the date of petition till realisation.