JUDGMENT 1. - The tragic accident occurred on 31st May 1984 in which 8 persons lost their lives and many persons sustained injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased and the injured file 12 claim cases before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur. All these cases were consolidated, tired and disposed of by the common judgment dated 19th of June, 1993. Claim Case No. 155/91 filed by Pyarelal, injured was dismissed. The remaining 11 claim cases were decreed against Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and the driver, owner of the truck and its insurer i.e. New India Assurance Co. 2. The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. have challenged the Award passed in all the claim cases. Out of the 11 appeals field by Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, seven appeals have already been admitted. Remaining 4 appeals have not yer been admitted. However, on the request of the learned Counsel for the parties these 4 appeals have also been heard finally for disposal at the admission stage alongwith other appeals. Since all the 22 appeals arise out of the same award, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. As averments in all the claim application and defences taken in the replies are almost identical, it is needless to state the facts of each case. Facts are borrowed from accident Claim Case No. 102/84. 3. It was averred that on 31st May, 1984 Bus CPO 8471 belonging to MPSRTC was on its way from Jaipur to Bharatpur. The bus was full of passengers. When it reached near village Bansi at about 10.00 a.m. it dashed against Truck URQ 247 coming from opposite direction. It was pleaded that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles and 8 passengers had died and other passengers had received serious injuries. It was further averred that the Truck involved in the accident belonged to Hasan Khan and was insured with New India Assurance Co. in the reply filed by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the factum of accident was not denied. However, it was pleaded that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck. in the reply filed by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the factum of accident was not denied. However, it was pleaded that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck. It was averred that the bus was moving with moderate speed when the truck came with excessive speed and dashed against the bus which resulted even in damage to the bus for which the MPSRTC has filed separate claim case. In the reply filed by Insurance Company of the truck, it was averred that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus. It was, however, admitted that the truck was insured with this company. 4. On the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed three issues. Claimants Puran Deviu, Madhukar Tiwari, Ratan Devi, Ram Dayal, Khudeja Begum, Rakesh Kumar, Smt. Mamta Sharma, Smt. Shanti Devi, Shobharam, Tara Devi, Jagdish Prasad and Mashwari Begum gave their statements. In rebuttal, Firdosh Khan was examined on behalf of the insurer of the truck. Saroop Singh, Conductor of the bus was examined by the M.P. Roadways. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties found that the accident had occurred because of the composite negligence of both the drivers. Ultimately, the Tribunal awarded various sums as compensation to the claimants. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. Mr. Goel, learned Counsel for M.P. Roadways contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the bus was also responsible for the accident. He contended that the amount awarded in the various cases is excessive. It was also pointed out that in Claim Case No. 136/91 which was filed by the L.Rs. of the driver of the truck, full amount has been awarded whereas even according to the Tribunal the driver of truck had contributed to the accident. 7. Mr. Srivastava, on the other hand, contended that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the truck and the Tribunal has erred in holding the Insurance Company liable for compensation. 8. The first point that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal has rightly found that the drives of both the vehicles were equally responsible for this accident. 9. 8. The first point that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal has rightly found that the drives of both the vehicles were equally responsible for this accident. 9. Puran Devi (PW 1) was travelling in this bus. She has deposed that the bus driver did not give side to the truck coming from opposite direction, as also the truck driver did not care to give side to the bus. She has also deposed that both the vehicles were being driven negligently and at an excessive speed. To the same effect is the statement of PW 4 Ramdayal who was also travelling in the bus. He has deposed in unequivocal terms that the driver of the bus was driving it at excessive speed and that accident had occurred because of the mistake of both the drives. Shobharam (PW 9) who had also suffered injuries while travelling in the bus has deposed that the driver of the bus was driving it at excessive speed even though the passengers objected to it. He has also deposed that the truck was also coming with excessive speed. Jagdish Prasad Saxena (AW 11) has also deposed that this accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus. He has further deposed that the road at the accident spot was wide enough and two vehicles could easily move in opposite direction. Thus, all the eye witnesses who were travelling in the bus have clearly deposed that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. 10. However, the statement of Firdosh Khan who claims that he was travelling in the truck and carrying his goods in that the truck was being driven by Marguva Khan at the speed of 50 kms/hr. and the truck driver had almost stopped the truck on the left side of the road yet the bus driver hit the truck. Thus according to him, the accident had occurred because of the negligent driving of the bus. Firdosh has admitted that there was no 'Bilty' of the goods in his name. He has also not been able to state as to what was the width of the 'Kachcha road on the left of the road'. This shows that Firdosh Khan, as a matter of fact, was not in the truck and he has given false statement. Firdosh has admitted that there was no 'Bilty' of the goods in his name. He has also not been able to state as to what was the width of the 'Kachcha road on the left of the road'. This shows that Firdosh Khan, as a matter of fact, was not in the truck and he has given false statement. Saroop Singh (NAW 2) who was the conductor of the bus at the relevant time has deposed that the bus was being driven at the speed of 45-50 Kms/hr. when the speeding truck came from opposite direction and dashed against the bus. According to him, the speed of the truck was 70 to 75 Kms/hr. and that the bus was moving on the left side of the road at a slow speed but the truck driver did not make an attempt to avoid the accident though he had enough place on his left side. The statement of Saroop Singh cannot be believed when all other witnesses have clearly deposed that the speed of the bus was excessive and that the driver was driving it negligently. It appears that Saroop Singh being the employee of the roadways, has come to help its employer. 11. In my opinion, the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified ins holding that this accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles and both the drivers contributed equally to the accident. 12. (a) Appeals No. 194/94 and 591/93 (Claim Case No. 143/91): (i) The claim case was filed by the legal representatives of Uma Kant (25) who died in the accident. As per the averments, Uma Kant was employed in the Bank. It has been proved that his monthly income was Rs. 1,058/-. The claimants are his widow, one child and mother. The Tribunal has held that the pecuniary loss to the family was Rs. 600/- per month. Taking the multiplier of 30' a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- has been assessed as loss of dependency. The Tribunal has also awarded some amount for funeral expenses, and for the loss of consortium and deprivation of love and affection and thus, Rs. 2,48,000/- have been awarded. (ii) The contention of Mr. Goel and Mr. 600/- per month. Taking the multiplier of 30' a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- has been assessed as loss of dependency. The Tribunal has also awarded some amount for funeral expenses, and for the loss of consortium and deprivation of love and affection and thus, Rs. 2,48,000/- have been awarded. (ii) The contention of Mr. Goel and Mr. Srivastava was that the multiplier of 30' is far excessive as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 : 1994 (1) T.A.C. 323 (S.C.) indicates that the maximum multiplier in a case can be 16'. It is true that in the above Case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that maximum multiplier can be of 16'. However, in the subsequent case of U.P. Roadways v. Trilok, 1996 (4) Supreme 479 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that highest multiplier can be of 18'. Looking to the age of Uma Kant certainly multiplier of 16' to 18' could be appropriate in he case. However, at the same time it will have to be kept in view that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case of 'Susamma Thomas' has observed that where the deceased was on a stable job, the present income of the deceased should be doubled to calculate his monthly income. If, in this case, the income of the deceased is doubled and multiplier of 16' is adopted, the amount awarded cannot be held to be excessive. As such, only on the ground that higher multiplier has been adopted, the appeals cannot be accepted. (iii) It is relevant to state that Insurance Company has got no right to assail the guantum. The defences available to the Insurance Company are limited and it can avoid liability only on the grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 96 and no others. When grounds of defence have been specified, they cannot be added to. That being so, the appeal of the Insurance Company for reducing the amount is not maintainable. 13. (b) Appeals No. 267/94 and 593/93 (Claim Case No. 139/91). (i) The deceased was Bherulal (40). Claim case has been filed by his widow and three children. Bherulal was in Government Service. It was proved that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 760/-. The Tribunal has observed that the loss to the family was of Rs. 13. (b) Appeals No. 267/94 and 593/93 (Claim Case No. 139/91). (i) The deceased was Bherulal (40). Claim case has been filed by his widow and three children. Bherulal was in Government Service. It was proved that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 760/-. The Tribunal has observed that the loss to the family was of Rs. 500/- per month and adopting the multiplier of 18' amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- was arrived at as the loss of dependency. Some amount for loss of consortium and deprivation of love and affection was added and a total sum of Rs. 1,48,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. (ii) The contention of both the learned Counsel for the appellants was that Bherulal was 40 years of age and higher multiplier of 18' could not be adopted. True it is, that at the age of 40 multiplier could not be of more than 12' as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case of Susamma Thomas. However, for the aforesaid reason the amount cannot be reduced in this case also. The Tribunal has not followed the principle of doubling the present income of the deceased when he was on the stable job. It the present income of the deceased is double, there will no be significant difference in the amount awardable and the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal. It is settled principle of law that Appellate Court would not disturb the quantum of award if the figure is within the margin of discretion. In my opinion, it is so, in this case. I am therefore, not inclined to disturb the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in this case also. 14. (c) Appeals No. 590/93 and 594/93 (Claim Case No. 141/91) (i) The deceased was Yogendra Kumari, mother of claimant Madhukar Tiwari. She was 45 years of the age at the time of accident. She was in Govt. Service and she earned Rs. 1,220/- per month. It is in evidence that the husband of Yogendra Kumari had married some another lady and therefore she was living with her son, the present claimant. It was noticed by the Tribunal that after the retirement Yogendra Kumari would have earned pension. Taking Rs. 500/- to be the monthly expenditure of Yogendra Kumari, for herself, the loss of dependency was assessed at Rs. It was noticed by the Tribunal that after the retirement Yogendra Kumari would have earned pension. Taking Rs. 500/- to be the monthly expenditure of Yogendra Kumari, for herself, the loss of dependency was assessed at Rs. 1,500/- per month and applying the multiplier of 10' a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- was arrived at. To this, some amount has been added for the deprivation of love and affection of the mother to the claimant. The Tribunal while assessing the loss of dependency has also kept in view that at the time of retirement the monthly income of Yogendra Kumari would have been more than Rs. 4,000/-. (ii) In my opinion, no fault can be found in the sum worked out by the Tribunal. The deceased would have been in Govt. service for at least 10 years and thereafter she would have earned pension throughout her life. No interference is called for by this Court. 15. Appeals No. 599/93 and 266/94 (Claim Case No. 137/91) (i) The claim case has been filed by the L.Rs. by Niyaz Amir @ Bade who was the second driver of the truck. He was not driving the truck at the time of accident. As per the averments in the claim application, the deceased was 32 years of age and he earned Rs. 1,150/-per month. Because of the insufficiency of evidence the Tribunal estimated the loss of dependency at Rs. 6,000/- per annum only. Adopting the multiplier of 30' a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- was arrived at as loss of dependency. After adding some amount for loss of consortium and deprivation of love and affection to the children, a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- has been awarded. (ii) The only objection raised by learned Counsel for the appellants was that very high multiplier of 30' has been adopted. True it is, at the age of 32, multiplier of 30' was not appropriate. the multiplier, in no circumstance, could exceed 15'. However, the Tribunal has not doubted the present income of he deceased while computing the loss of dependency. The deceased was in his young age and was likely to earn more and more amount in future and, therefore, the present income of the deceased ought to have been doubled. If this is done, the compensation would work out to be more or less the same. The deceased was in his young age and was likely to earn more and more amount in future and, therefore, the present income of the deceased ought to have been doubled. If this is done, the compensation would work out to be more or less the same. In these circumstances, no case of interference is made out in these appeals also. 16. Appeals No. 600/93 & 87/94 (Claim Case No. 142/91) (i) The claim case had been field by the parents and brother and sister of the deceased Rajesh Kumar (25). According to the averments made in the claim application, Rajesh Kumar was student of B.Sc. and a promising youth. Evidence has been given by AW 9 Rakesh, brother of the deceased, and AW 10 Tara Devi (mother). They have deposed that Rajesh Kumar was studying and he would have earned at least Rs. 1,700/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month. The documentary evidence noticed by the Tribunal indicated that the deceased had cleared diploma in Food Preservation in 1st Division. The Tribunal estimated the loss of dependency at Rs. 500/- per month and applying the multiplier of 15' the loss of dependency was assessed at Rs. 90,000/-. To this amount, funeral expenses and other conventional items were added Rs. 1,32,000/- have been awarded. (ii) The deceased was 25 years of age only and as he was good at studies, it can safely be presumed that had he not died in the accident he would have risen to certain heights. The Tribunal was perfectly justified in estimating the pecuniary loss to the parents at Rs. 500/- per month. The multiplier of 15' in the circumstances also cannot be held to be excessive. No interference is therefore, called in these appeals also. 17. Appeals No. 594/95 and 69/94 (Claim Case No. 149/91)The claim case was filed by the parents of the deceased Mushir Khan who died at the age of 28 in that accident. Maswari Begum (AW 12) has deposed that her son used to do fruit business and give Rs. 1,000/- to her. The Tribunal has assessed the loss to do fruit business and give Rs. 1,000/- to her. The Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 6,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 10' a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was calculated as pecuniary loss. After adding Rs. 20,000/- for other items, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to her. The Tribunal has assessed the loss to do fruit business and give Rs. 1,000/- to her. The Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 6,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 10' a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was calculated as pecuniary loss. After adding Rs. 20,000/- for other items, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- has been awarded. In my opinion, the Tribunal has not erred in assessing the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 6,000/- per annum. The amount by no stretch of imagination can be called excessive. The multiplier of 10' also cannot be called to be inappropriate. That being so, these appeals also deserve to be dismissed. 18. Appeals No. 596/93 and 89/94 (Claim Case No. 138/91)This claim case was filed by Puran Devi, injured. At the relevant time, she was Assistant Teacher in the Government School and earning Rs. 900/- per month as salary. She had suffered injuries on her pelvis and there was fracture of humerus. She had also suffered other injuries. She claimed Rs. 74,280/-. In her statement Puran Devi (AW 1) has deposed that she was hospitalized for 13 days and surgery was performed on her right hand. She has further deposed that she had to undergo the rigour of second operation and her bone was taken out from the hip and was fixed in the hand. According to her, she remained on leave without salary for 3 months and she spent around Rs. 70 to 80 thousand in treatment. The Tribunal on the basis of the vouchers submitted by the claimant, awarded Rs. 2,890/- for the expenses on treatment. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 10,000/- for the loss of salary. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental agony and bodily pain and disability she would suffer throughout her life. Keeping in view the facts that the claimant was operated twice and she remained hospitalised for number of days and that she was still not in a position to lift articles from he hand, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has erred in computing Rs. 50,000/- as general damages. Only a sum of Rs. 62,890/- has been awarded which cannot be called excessive. 19. 50,000/- as general damages. Only a sum of Rs. 62,890/- has been awarded which cannot be called excessive. 19. Appeal No. 598/93 and 70/94 (Claim Case No. 147/91)In the claim case Shobha Ram had averred that he was travelling in the bus and because of the accident he had suffered multiple injuries and he had to travel to Bharatpur for treatment again and again. Shobha Ram (AW 5) has deposed that he remained on bed for 5-6 months and he was plastered thrice and that the spent Rs. 15 to 20 thousands in the treatment. He has further deposed that he was to go to serve the Roadways at Kota but because of the accident he could not go and he has been debarred from getting employment. The claimant did not file any voucher in support of the claim for expense incurred on treatment and, therefore, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2,000/- under this head. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 15,000/- as general damages for bodily pain and mental agony. The claimant was 25 years of age. It is natural that he would suffer pain throughout his life. It cannot be said that the award of Rs. 15,000/- as general damages is excessive. No. interference is called for in these appeals. 20. Appeals No. 601/93 and 89/94 (Claim Case No. 152/91)This claim case was filed by Jagdish Prasad for the injuries suffered by him in that accident. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- only. AW 1 Jagdish Prasad has deposed that his right leg was fractured and he could not go on duty for about 7 to 8 months. He has also filed the medical certificate Ex. 119 and has deposed that still his leg was not O.K. and whenever there was clouds he felt pain in the leg. According to him, he had been put under plaster for about 6 months and he had to suffer lot of pain. The Tribunal has not awarded excessive amount. No interference is called for in these appeals. 21. Appeals No. 597/93 and 499/94 (Claim Case No. 156/94)This claim case was filed by Ramdayal who had suffered injuries in the accident. He had claimed Rs. 33,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,309/-. Ramdayal (AW 4) has deposed that his right leg was fractured in that accident and he remained hospitalised for about 10 days. 21. Appeals No. 597/93 and 499/94 (Claim Case No. 156/94)This claim case was filed by Ramdayal who had suffered injuries in the accident. He had claimed Rs. 33,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,309/-. Ramdayal (AW 4) has deposed that his right leg was fractured in that accident and he remained hospitalised for about 10 days. He has also deposed that his leg was twice plastered and he had to avail 8 months PL for which he could get encashment. He has deposed that he had spent Rs. 3,000/- in the treatment yet his leg was not O.K. According to him he could not sit cross legged. The approach of Tribunal in awarding Rs. 25,000/- cannot be called to be erroneous. 22. Appeals No. 592/93 and 188/94 (Claim Case No. 136/91) (i) The claim case has been field by Khudeja Begum, mother of Marguva Ahmed (Kham) who was driving the truck at the time of accident. She had claimed Rs. 3,30,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. AW 5 Khudeja Begum appeared in the witness box in support of her claim case. She has deposed that her son was 32 years of age. Khudeja Begum was 52 years of age at the time she gave her statement. The Tribunal has considered the pecuniary loss to the mother of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per annum and adopting the multiplier of 15' total loss of dependency has been assessed at Rs. 98,000/-. To this amount a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- was added and thus, Rs. 1 lakh have been awarded. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 15' cannot be held to be excessive. The amount assessed is just compensation can by no stretch of imagination be called excessive. (ii) However, the Tribunal has certainly erred in awarding the entire sum to the claimant. The Tribunal has found that the accident had occurred because of the negligence of the drivers of both the colliding vehicles. The deceased was driving the truck and therefore, he was equally responsible for the accident. In this claim case, the principle of composite negligence could not be applied. It was a case of contributory negligence of the deceased. As such, the amount assessed ought to have been reduced by 50%. In my opinion, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- only. In this claim case, the principle of composite negligence could not be applied. It was a case of contributory negligence of the deceased. As such, the amount assessed ought to have been reduced by 50%. In my opinion, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- only. the award needs to be notified in this respect. 23. No other point was pressed before me in all the appeals. 24. Consequently, Appeals No. 592/93 and 188/94 are allowed in part and the award in modified. The claimant respondent is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- only from the Madhya Pradesh Stare Road Transport Corporation. 25. All other appeals are devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******