JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Appellants are the widow, sons and grand parents of the deceased late Shri Raja Ram. When the claim petition was filed on 19.10.1985, the widow of the deceased was aged 24 years. Minor sons were aged 4 years and 1 1/2 years respectively. Grand-father was aged 75 years. Age of the grand-mother of the deceased has not come on record. 2. 22 years have gone by. When questioned whether the grand parents are alive, the learned Counsel for the appellants stated that she does not know. Adjournment was prayed for. 3. Since the matter relates to an accident which took place in the 1985. and the appeal has remained pending in this Court since the year 1988 I had thought it advisable not to adjourn the matter. I had heard the arguments. 4. By and under the impugned award dated 26.7.1988, claim petition has been dismissed principally on the ground that the alleged eyewitness, PW-3, Chittar Singh was a planted witness. The finding has been returned by the learned Judge noting material discrepancies and inconsistency in the deposition of Chittar Singh and investigating officer, SI Phool Chand who were examined as PW-4. 5. It is not in dispute that Raja Ram was found dead on the road at S.P. Marg at around 8:30 PM on 5.8.1985. The post mortem report Ex.PW1/A evidences injury caused by impact of a vehicle on the person of the deceased. 6. According to the appellants, the accident was witnessed by Chittar Singh, PW-3. 7. In his examination-in-chief, Chittar Singh stated that he saw the accident as he was standing at the Fatehpuri bus stop. He stated that bus No. DHP-2480 was the offending vehicle. He stated that he saw a man crossing the road. That the bus came speeding at 60 Kms per hour to 70 Kms per hour. It was being driven in a zig-zag manner. After hitting the deceased, the driver stopped for a while and then sped away. He stated that 4 or 5 other persons were present at the bus stop. He stated that he recollected name of one person, namely, Rameshwar Dayal. He stated that he did not inform the police about the accident. He categorically stated that the police never contacted him. That Rameshwar Dayal came to his office and took him to the police station when he disclosed the number of the bus. He stated that he recollected name of one person, namely, Rameshwar Dayal. He stated that he did not inform the police about the accident. He categorically stated that the police never contacted him. That Rameshwar Dayal came to his office and took him to the police station when he disclosed the number of the bus. In cross-examination he stated that he did not know where Rameshwar Dayal resides or works. He stated that Rameshwar Dayal came to him on 7.8.1985 at his workplace at the Railway Station. He further stated that after the accident he remained at the spot for 20 to 25 minutes. Police did not come to the spot as along as he remained there. 8. SI Phool Chand who conducted the investigation appeared as PW-4 and stated that at about 8:45 PM, on 5.8.1985 he received a copy of DD Entry No. 17-A and pursuant thereto he accompanied by Const. Samay Pal Singh left for the site of the accident. On reaching the site of the accident they found the deceased lying dead. He stated that it was raining and no eyewitness was available. He stated that based on the daily diary entry No. 17 and what he saw at the spot he sent a rukka for registering an FIR under Section 279/304.A IPC. He stated that he sent the dead body for postmortem. He stated that he continued with the investigation on 6.8.1985 by going back to the spot. He questioned people around the area and met Chittar Singh who told him that the previous night he had witnessed the accident. That he disclosed the number of the bus as DHP-2480 plying on Route No. 131. 9. Learned Judge has noted that in the record of investigation conducted by the police there is no reference to any Rameshwar Dayal, the person named by Chittar Singh being the one who took him to the police. Learned Judge has further noted that whereas Chitter Singh categorically stated that Rameshwar Dayal came to him on 7.8.1985, i.e., 2 days after the accident, and took him to the police station for having his statement recorded, SI Phool Singh disclosed completely different facts of having come into contact with Chittar Singh. As noted above, SI Phool Chand categorically deposed that he met Chittar Singh, the day next after the accident, i.e., 6.8.1985, when he was making investigations at the spot. 10. As noted above, SI Phool Chand categorically deposed that he met Chittar Singh, the day next after the accident, i.e., 6.8.1985, when he was making investigations at the spot. 10. Further, the learned Trial Judge has found it to be a case of abnormal behaviour, if indeed Chittar Singh had witnessed the accident, learned Judge has opined that normal human conduct would be to inform the police and try and render medical aid to the injured. 11. Noting the discrepancy in the testimony of Chittar Singh and SI PhooJ Chand and noting it to be a case of abnormal human conduct of an eyewitness, learned Judge has disbelieved that Chittar Singh witnessed the accident. 12. Unfortunately, neither before the learned Trial Judge, nor before me, counsel for the claimants made an endeavour to scrutinize the record with a hawks eye. 13. More often than not, truth lies hidden in nooks and corners. It discloses itself to a prying eye. 14. A penetrative look at the FIR, Ex.PW 2/A reveals a lot. 15. I am a little handicapped for the reason DD entry No. 17-A dated 5.8.1985 which set into motion the process of investigation has not been brought on record. As would be evident from my discussion hereinafter, said DD entry would have revealed a lot. 16. However, the FIR, EX.PW2/A throws a lot of light on the issue at hand, 17. The FIR has been recorded at 9:45 PM on 5.8.1985 pursuant to the rukka sent from the spot by PW-4, SI Phool Chand. The FIR makes a reference to the contents of DD Entry No. 17-A dated 5.8.1985. The FIR commences as under: On 8:45 PM telephonic information has been received from the PCR van from SI Todar Mai that Head Const. Puri has been informed by an unknown messenger that a DTC bus No. 2405 or 2408, plying on Route No. 131 has run over a man near Fatehpuri. 18. Further contents of the F.I.R. need not be noted for the reason they refer to the rukka sent by SI Phool Chand. 19. Nobody bothered to read the contents of EX.PW2/A, i.e., the FIR. 20. A contemporaneous information has been recorded through unknown messenger that a person has been run over by a DTC bus plying on Route No. 131, number of the bus was either 2405 or 2408. 21. 19. Nobody bothered to read the contents of EX.PW2/A, i.e., the FIR. 20. A contemporaneous information has been recorded through unknown messenger that a person has been run over by a DTC bus plying on Route No. 131, number of the bus was either 2405 or 2408. 21. The driver of the bus, Sant Ram has stepped into the witness box as RW-1. In his examination-in-chief he stated that on 5.8.1985 he was the driver of bus No. DHP-2480. That the bus was plying on Route No. 131 from Fatehpuri to Lampur Border. He further stated that his route timing from Fatehpuri used to normally commence at 8:40 PM but on 5.8.1985 he was asked to proceed for his journey at 8:30 PM as the earlier bus had not reported. 22. Testimony of RW-1 establishes that bus No. DHP-2480 was plying on Route No. 131 and Fatehpuri was on the route. The testimony further establishes the presence of the bus at Fatehpuri i.e., the starting point of the journey at 8:30 PM. 23. The FIR has been registered at 9:45 PM. the DD entry 17-A has been recorded by the local police on 8:45 PM. The timing of the registration of DD entry 17-A is important. It is further important to note that the unknown messenger who gave information to the PCR van disclosed that a man has been run over by a DTC bus plying on Route No. 131 and that the number of the bus was either 2405 or 2408. 24. The bus which has been alleged to be the offending vehicle bears No. DHP2480. 25. We have 3 numbers before us: 2405, 2408 and 2480. 26. It is important to note that the accident took place around 8:30 PM. It is also important to note that in his testimony, SI Phool Chand has stated that when he reached the spot, it was raining. Thus, the informant could have committed an error in correctly noting the number of the bus. But what is relevant is that the informant gave the route number displayed by the bus. As noted above, RW-1, the driver of bus No. DHP-2480 admitted that his bus was plying on route No. 131 and was at Fatehpuri at 8:30 PM. 27. Thus, the informant could have committed an error in correctly noting the number of the bus. But what is relevant is that the informant gave the route number displayed by the bus. As noted above, RW-1, the driver of bus No. DHP-2480 admitted that his bus was plying on route No. 131 and was at Fatehpuri at 8:30 PM. 27. I am satisfied that there is enough evidence on record to satisfy the standard of proof required to be achieved in a trial in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 28. Notwithstanding the fact that the discrepancy in the testimony of Chittar Singh, the so called eyewitness and SI Phool Chand renders suspect the testimony of both, but the contemporaneous facts noted in the FIR, EX.PW2/A as found recorded in DD entry No. 17-A are enough to bring Out the truth. 29. I accordingly hold that it has been established by the evidence on record that the deceased died due to being hit by bus No. DHP-2480 belonging to DTC. 30. Site Plan Ex.PW4/A where the dead body was found evidences that on the main stretch of Shyama Prasad Mukerje Marg near the Central Verge, the deceased was hit by a motor vehicle. The place of accident is a straight road. The driver of the bus could not have seen a pedestrian on the road. 31. Post mortem report Ex. PW1/A shows multiple fracture of bones at various places. It records that the brain is lacerated. Internal organs were damaged. There was blood in the lungs. 32. The post mortem report shows that the deceased was hit with sufficient momentum. The nature of injuries evidence the speed with which the bus was being driven. The post mortem report evidences that the bus was being driven at a high speed, meaning thereby, rashly. 33. On the issue of loss of dependence, testimony of PW-8 Ram Niwas Kardam, UDC DDA has to be looked into. PW-6 deposed that the deceased was working as a Khalasi in DDA. He was appointed on 15.12.1976. When he died, deceased was earning monthly salary of Rs. 927.55. That as per record, date of birth of the deceased was 1.3.1956. That Class -IV employees retire at the age of 58 years. 34. The accident took place on 5.8.1985. The deceased was born on 1.3.1956. He was appointed on 15.12.1976. When he died, deceased was earning monthly salary of Rs. 927.55. That as per record, date of birth of the deceased was 1.3.1956. That Class -IV employees retire at the age of 58 years. 34. The accident took place on 5.8.1985. The deceased was born on 1.3.1956. Thus, he was nearing the age of 30 years when he died. He could have served till the age of 58 years, meaning thereby, he had further 28 gainful years of employment. 35. There is no evidence on record as to what was the scale of Khalasi, i.e., the post held by the deceased. 36. A fact needs to be noted. With effect from 1.1.1986, with the implementation of 4th Pay Commission, there was quantum jump in wages. Thereafter, with the implementation of the 5th Pay Commission recommendation, there was further quantum jump in wages with effect from 1.1.1996. 37. Therefore, I would not be unjustified if I treat that by the end of his service career, income of the deceased would have risen four folds. Thus, the mean average income of the deceased comes to Rs. 2318.87 (rounded off to Rs. 2300/-) per month. 38. The parents of the deceased had pre-deceased him. Wife, minor children and grand parents of the deceased were dependent upon him. 39. Thus, dependents would be the wife and the 2 minor sons who, as noted above, were aged 4 years and 1 1/2 years when the deceased died. 40. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, i.e., 30 years and that of dependents, wife being 24 years and the minor sons being 4 years and 11/2 years respectively, in the light of the decisions reported as: (i) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Bala and Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 249 (ii) Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. v. K.I. Bindu (2005) 8 SCC 473 . (iii) T.N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Section Rajapriya (2005) 6 SCC 236 . (iv) Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer (2003) 8 SCC 731 . (v) State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur (2003) 7 SCC 484 . 41. Latest decision on the issue has been pronounced by the Supreme Court on 8.3.2007 reported as 2007 AIR SCW 1884 Managing Director, TNSTC v. Sripriya. (iv) Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer (2003) 8 SCC 731 . (v) State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur (2003) 7 SCC 484 . 41. Latest decision on the issue has been pronounced by the Supreme Court on 8.3.2007 reported as 2007 AIR SCW 1884 Managing Director, TNSTC v. Sripriya. In the said case, for a deceased aged 32 to 33 years, Supreme Court has been applying the multiplier of 13. 42. While adopting the multiplier I have taken into consideration that the elder son of the deceased would have found gainful employment in the next 18 years and the younger son would have been gainfully employed in the next 21 years. That the widow would need t o be recompensed dependence till as long as she lived. I have considered the effect of capitalization of future earnings. 43. Taking 1/3rd as the personal expenses of the deceased, loss of dependence comes to Rs. 1533.41 per month. Annual loss of dependence comes to Rs. 18,400.92. Applying multiplier 14, loss of dependence comes to Rs. 2,57,612.88 (rounded off to Rs. 2,58,000/-). 44. Granting conventional damages of Rs. 2000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium for wife and loss of love and affection to the minor children, total compensation payable is determined as Rs. 2,75,000/-. 45. Considering that the claim petition was filed in the year 1985 when scheduled banks were offering interest @ 12% p.a. on fixed deposits which rate fluctuated between 10% p.a. to 12% p.a. till the year 2000. Thereafter, rate of accident fell as low as 5.5% in the year 2006 and has since risen to 8.5% p.a. I direct that on the sum awarded, interest would be payable to the appellants @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till date of payment. 46. Needless to state, since bus belonged to DTC, liability to satisfy the award would be joint and several of DTC, as owner and Sant Ram, the driver of the*bus impleaded as respondent No. 2. 47. 46. Needless to state, since bus belonged to DTC, liability to satisfy the award would be joint and several of DTC, as owner and Sant Ram, the driver of the*bus impleaded as respondent No. 2. 47. Not knowing whether the grand parents are alive or not and assuming that they are alive, both would be nearing 100 years, and if alive, would be looked after by their daughter-in-law and grand children, I am not directing any payment to the grand parents because it would create procedural difficulty in the 2 withdrawing the monthly interest as I intend to secure the amount awarded by keeping it in a fixed deposit. 48. The compensation, together with accrued interest till date of payment shall be apportioned as under: (a) Wife of the deceased ...... 50% (b) Both sons of the deceased ...... 25% each 49. The money payable would be retained in a fixed deposit for a period of 5 years from the date of deposit. Deposit would be with a nationalized bank. The wife and the sons of the deceased would be permitted to withdraw monthly, quarterly or half yearly interest as would be the term of the deposit. 50. No costs.