JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J (Oral): - The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation for death of a male aged 38 years. The accident was said to have taken place in a collision between the car that the deceased was driving and bus belonging to the Haryana State. The bus was proceeding from South to North while the car was on a bye pass road proceeding from West to East. The accident had taken place at the junction of the roads. The site plan drawn up by the police and which was produced before the Tribunal showed that the car was spotted on the northern extremity of the inter-section, while the bus had stopped a little behind the car. The point of impact was definitely on the left extremity of the road proceeding from West to East. In the manner of assessment of the issue regarding negligence, the driver of the Haryana Roadways gave evidence to the effect that the car was driving rashly and negligently and dashed against the conductor’s side at the back portion of the bus. The accident was said to have taken place at 4.30 P.M., and the FIR had been lodged at 5.50 P.M. The statement was also said to have been recorded from the witness by the police subsequently. The Tribunal reasoned that if the car had dashed against the back portion of the bus, it must be only a case of negligence of the driver of the Car. I cannot take this assessment to be correct for although at the time when site place is drawn the location of the vehicle could have been different from the place of actual impact, the fact that the car seen spotted ahead of the bus is not compatible with the contention that the car had dashed against the backside of the bus. It would have been possible for the Haryana Roadways denying negligence on its part to show that the dent of the bus was only at the back side. A collision that causes the death of the driver who was driving the vehicle and who must have received the impact of the bus directly on his body ought to have been serious enough to cause an appreciable dent in the body of the bus. A collision that causes the death of the driver who was driving the vehicle and who must have received the impact of the bus directly on his body ought to have been serious enough to cause an appreciable dent in the body of the bus. The location in the sketch leaves me with little doubt that bus had hit the vehicle when it was still crossing the road intersection and if a greater circumspection has been shown by the driver of the bus in letting the vehicle go along bye pass, the collision would not have taken place. I do not find that the FIR that was lodged an hour or more later to the accident should be a point to discredit the version on the side of the claimant that the negligence was on the driver of the bus. We are not examining a situation of denial of the involvement of the vehicle to find whether the FIR could have been fabricated and whether the delay could have any bearing to the truth of the contentions raised. If the fact of collision of the bus with the Car is an admitted event, then a delay however long it was in registering the FIR or in the manner of collecting evidence by the police during investigation will not detract from the fundamental premise that the accident had arisen by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. I, therefore, set aside the finding of the Tribunal that the claimants had not established the negligence of the driver of the Haryana Roadways bus. 2. On the issue of quantum, the deceased was said to be running a pharmaceutical shop and was also engaged in agriculture. He was an income tax assessee and the assessment for a few years prior to his death had been filed and the list of such assessments filed for the assessment year 2009-10 showed his income to be Rs.1,87,330/- and the tax paid was said to be in the range of Rs.350/-. The status of a person as an income tax assessee and the fact that the deceased was himself the owner of the car that he was driving shows his relative affluent status. I would take the income at Rs.15,000/- per month and make a deduction of 1/3rd for his personal expenses and take the contribution to the family at Rs.10,000/- per month. I would take the income at Rs.15,000/- per month and make a deduction of 1/3rd for his personal expenses and take the contribution to the family at Rs.10,000/- per month. Adopting a multiplier of 15, I will find the loss of dependency at Rs.18,00,000/-. I will make a further addition of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.5,000/- for each of the minor children for loss of love and affection. I will make a further provision of Rs.10,000/- towards loss to estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses to hold the total amount of compensation payable at Rs.18,30,000/-. This amount shall bear interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 3. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2009 and I have adopted a multiplier of 15, I would allow for withdrawal of 25% of the amount for the widow and direct the remaining 75% to be deposited for a period of 10 years split into ten equal shares, the first share for a period of one year, second for a period of two years and so on up to ten years. The amount shall be payable on the respective dates of maturity to the widow. As regards the share of the child, the amount shall be retained in deposit in a Nationalized Bank yielding interest. The interest accruals during the period of respective maturity shall be paid to the mother as guardian of the children for the maintenance. On attaining maturity of the respective deposit the claimant shall be permitted to withdraw up to 50% and the remaining 50% shall remain in deposit for another period of 10 years and shall be split in the same manner as referred to above and become payable on the respective dates of maturity. The liability shall be on the respondents jointly and severally and the right of enforcement for the claimants shall be against the insurer for the bus. 4. The award is set aside and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. ----------0BSK0----------