JUDGMENT J.P. Semwal, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.3.1980, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Addl. District and Sessions Judge), Deoria, awarding a sum of Rs. 49,212/- along with interest at 6 per cent with costs.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be narrated within narrow compass. An accident took place on 8.9.1977, in which Heera Prasad Singh, who was Junior Engineer in Public Works Department while driving his motor cycle, collided with truck No. UPQ 1237 of the Agriculture Department of State of U.P., as a result of which Heera Prasad Singh received serious injuries and was admitted in Civil Hospital, Deoria and was further shifted to Medical College, Gorakhpur, on 16.9.1977, where he succumbed to his injuries at 1.30 a.m. on 17.9.1977. Deceased Heera Prasad Singh was aged about 27 years at the time of his death. His widow, Vidyawati Singh and son, Satish Kumar Singh, preferred claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming Rs. 3,10,000/- along with interest. Both the respondents contested the claim petition. They admitted the factum of accident of 8.9.1977 and the death of Heera Prasad Singh on 17.9.1977. They, however, resisted the claim on the ground that deceased Heera Prasad Singh was not owner of Bullet motor cycle No. UTQ 264 nor he had any valid licence and had also no experience of driving a motor cycle. It was urged that the truck driver was driving the truck slowly and carefully. As the truck overtook bullock-cart, Heera Prasad Singh suddenly came before the truck from right direction. The truck driver tried his best to avoid the accident and in doing so the truck skidded into a khud. It was urged that the cause of accident was negligence and carelessness of Heera Prasad Singh who was driving his motor cycle on wrong side. It was also alleged that the death of Heera Prasad Singh occurred nine days after the accident and cause of his death could be on any other ground. It was also stated that a sum of Rs. 18,689/- had already been paid to the widow of the deceased.
3. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal found the claim petition of the petitioners maintainable and that the deceased knew driving of motor cycle and that the accident took place on account of negligent and careless driving by Brij Bhushan and not on account of carelessness of Heera Prasad Singh.
4. The Tribunal held the cause of death of Heera Prasad Singh on account of injuries sustained by him in that accident. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 49,212/-including Rs. 4,000/- on medical expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony, by its judgment and order dated 31.3.1980.
5. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, State of U.P. has preferred this appeal on the ground that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by Heera Prasad Singh; that Heera Prasad Singh could not maintain balance of the motor cycle when the truck approached and he had no driving licence.
6. I have heard Mr. R.P. Shastri, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. V.N. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. The factum of accident and death of Heera Prasad Singh are not disputed. The only ground of challenge of the judgment and order of the Tribunal is that the evidence proves that the death of Heera Prasad Singh took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by Heera Prasad Singh as he was carrying two passengers on the back seat of the motor cycle due to which he could not maintain the balance. A perusal of the judgment and order of the Tribunal goes to show that the Tribunal has elaborately dealt with the evidence before it. The evidence of Ayodhya Saran Gupta, witness No. 5, produced on behalf of the claimants has been accepted by the Tribunal. He is the eyewitness of the factum of the accident. It has come in his evidence categorically that Heera Prasad Singh was on the left side of the road and the truck was on the right side and it struck the motor cycle. It has also come in the evidence that the truck driver has not blown horn. Reliance has also been placed on Exh. Ka-3, which is site plan of the accident prepared by the investigating agency in Criminal Case No. 667 of 1978, State v. Brij Bhushan, under Sections 279, 338 and 304A, Indian Penal Code, which also supports the claimants' case. Two witnesses produced on behalf of the appellants, namely, Jhinga Miyan and Brij Bhushan, had not been relied upon by the Tribunal and it has pointed out inconsistencies and contradictions in their evidence. It is evident from the evidence that the driver of the truck could not control and avoid the accident as a result of which the truck turned towards right side. An attempt was made to show that the driver was cautious in avoiding the accident and in his attempt to avoid the accident he had turned the truck towards right side of the road. This, however, on the face of it, is not convincing. If the driver was driving the truck slowly and carefully then there was no reason as to why the truck would have struck the incoming motor cycle while attempting to avoid the accident. The reason is obvious that the truck driver was driving the truck negligently and carelessly at high speed and after he crossed bullock-cart, he could not control his truck when the motor cycle immediately approached from the opposite direction and it resulted in accident.
8. The evidence of the claimants cannot be discarded only on the basis that Heera Prasad Singh was carrying two passengers on the back seat of the motor cycle and he had no driving licence. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that two persons were sitting on the back seat of the motor cycle and Heera Prasad Singh was not having any driving licence at that time, no inference can be drawn that he was driving the motor cycle negligently and carelessly. Merely because Heera Prasad Singh was not having a driving licence does not lead to an inference that he did not know driving of motor cycle. [See Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra 1968 ACJ 51 (SC)]. The evidence shows that the deceased was Junior Engineer and he used to go on duty on his motor cycle. The Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was regularly driving the motor cycle and that the accident had taken place not on account of careless and negligent driving of the motor cycle but it took place on account of careless and negligent driving by the truck driver who could not control his truck at the relevant time.
9. As regards the death of Heera Prasad Singh, there is no doubt that he died on account of his injuries sustained by him at the time of accident. Dr. Mohd. Suhel Alam, witness No. 2 of the claimants, had examined injuries of Heera Prasad Singh on 8.9.1977, in District Hospital, Deoria and he found 10 injuries on his person, vide Exh. Ka-1. He had stated categorically that those injuries could have been received on account of motor cycle and truck accident and that cumulative effect of the injuries could cause the death of injured. The condition of the injured was serious at that time when he was admitted. An argument was advanced by the learned Standing Counsel that the injured was advised to shift to the Medical College, Gorakhpur, on 11.9.1977, but his attendant, Ram Sumer Singh, expressed his inability to shift him to Gorakhpur. On the basis of this argument, it was urged that the death of deceased could have been avoided if he would have been shifted to Gorakhpur Medical College on 11.9.1977. This argument by itself is of no consequence as the injured was already admitted in the hospital at Deoria and was under treatment It would thus be not said that injured did not remain under treatment on or before 11.9.1977. No doubt he was advised to be shifted to Gorakhpur Medical College but the attendant expressed his inability which, however, does not amount to his refusal or negligence. In any view of the matter, this submission does not help the appellants in depriving the claimants of their claim.
10. No other point was argued. The appeal is devoid of merit and fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents urges that though no cross-appeal has been filed but the respondents have been deprived of the amount of compensation since 1980 and the rate of interest awarded is meagre.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found just and proper that the appellants will pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from this date.