JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J.
1. These two appeals are directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mathura, dated 4th February, 1980 by which he has disposed two Claim Petition Nos. 64 and 65 of 1978. Both the claim cases arise out of the same accident.
2. The relevant facts are that on 15th February, 1978, jeep No. UTR 7073 belonging to Vrajlal Manilal & Co. of Agra and driven by Sripal was proceeding from Agra to Mathura, bus No. UTH 4366 belonging to the appellant Corporation was coming from Delhi and was proceeding towards Agra on the main G.T. Road, at a place known as Kurkunde-ki-Pyao between Mathura and Agra about 20 km. off Mathura, the said jeep and the bus collided in which the driver of the jeep Sripal and one of the passengers Amarnath lost their lives. Amarnath was thrown out of the jeep due to the impact and due to severe head injuries and fracture of the ribs he died on the spot. The driver of the jeep, however, was seriously injured and died on way to the hospital.
3. The admitted facts are that the road width of the place where the collision took place is about 30 feet. It is also admitted that at the time of the collision, no vehicle was going in front of the jeep. The jeep was hit in the right middle section near the driver's seat. The damage to the bus was caused near the right front bumper, right headlight and near the driver's window. Admittedly the bus stopped after travelling 70 paces while the jeep stopped about 10 paces from the place of collision. It is also admitted that the jeep driver had seen the on-rushing bus from a distance of about 50 yards. Similarly, the driver of the bus admits having seen the jeep when it was at a distance of about 50 yards. Apart from these admitted facts, the version of the two sides varies. According to the surviving passengers in the jeep, the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving, high speed and the attempt of the bus driver to overtake a vehicle in front of it without caring about the traffic coming from the opposite direction. On the contrary, the version of the driver of the bus is that the jeep was being driven at a very high speed and when it was first seen, it was on the same side as the bus, i.e., it was coming on the wrong half side of the road. The bus driver blew the horn, gave indication by dipping the lights and also slowed down the bus. However, despite all these attempts, the jeep neither slowed down nor tried to avoid hitting the bus. The bus driver steered the vehicle to the left side and brought the left wheels of the vehicle on the kacha portion of the road patri while only two right side wheels remained on the pucca portion of the road. According to the appellant, this was the position when the jeep collided with the bus. In this manner, both sides blame the driver of the other vehicle as being guilty of negligence.
4. Apart from the heirs of the two deceased persons in the respective claim petitions, Ram Babu, PW 3, and Bhaskar Rao, PW 4, have been examined on behalf of the claimants. They were admittedly sitting in the jeep at the time of the collision. They both supported the version of the claimants about the manner in which the accident had taken place. PW 5 Deepak Kakkar is the photographer who took the photographs of the jeep and the bus on 16th February, 1978, i.e., one day after the accident. From the side of the Corporation, apart from the driver of the bus and the Station Incharge, DW 4, two other persons DW 1 Pitam Singh and DW 3 Sunheri Lal have been examined who both claimed to be passengers of the bus. Only Pitam Singh, DW 1, has produced the ticket. He has also given the written statement to the Station Incharge stating about the manner in which the accident had taken place. It is Ext. A-l on the record. A mere look at this document shows that it has been scribed by somebody else while the signatures are in a different ink. DW 4 Station Incharge had submitted one report known as Preliminary Accident Report on 16th February, 1978 and thereafter another accident report was given on a printed form on 28th March, 1978. These documents are marked as Exhs. D-2 and D-3 on the record. From the side of the claimants, the documentary evidence consists of photographs produced by witness PW 5, the death certificate, Exh. 1, salary certificate, copy of the post-mortem report, Exh. 2, copy of the F.I.R., Exh. 3 and the Police Investigation Report, Exh. 4. The positives of the photographs are marked Exhs. 5 to 11 while the negatives are Exh. 12.
5. On an assessment of the above evidence on the record, the Tribunal has recorded a finding against the appellant having found that the bus driver was rash and negligent in driving the bus at the relevant time and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- to the heirs of Amarnath and a sum of Rs. 43,200/- to the heirs of the driver of the jeep. Aggrieved by this award the Corporation has come up in appeal.
6. Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the Corporation, has vehemently urged that the finding of negligence recorded against the bus driver was erroneous and could not be sustained on the material on record. According to him, the theory that the bus was trying to overtake and this resulted in the accident was erroneous inasmuch as in the claim petition there was no indication of this fact. It is true that in the claim petition this fact has not been clearly stated but at the same time we find that in column 23 of the claim petition it is specifically mentioned that the jeep was being driven on its left side and it was the bus driver who was driving at a very fast speed and the bus had gone out of control due to his rash and negligent driving which caused the accident. Normally it is for the defendant to seek clarification of the pleadings in case full particulars have not been given in the claim petition. The record shows that the written statement was to be initially filed on 27th October, 1978 but the respondent took time where after, 11th December was fixed for the purpose. On the date fixed, the matter could not be taken up as it was declared as a holiday but even thereafter no written statement was filed which was ultimately filed and accepted on 27th January, 1979. No written statement on behalf of the driver was, however, filed on that date and at a much later date, i.e., on 31st March, 1979, a statement was made on his behalf that the written statement already filed by defendant No. 1 may be treated as his written statement also. Thus, no attempt was made till then to suggest that the allegations made in column 23 were either vague or ambiguous. In the written statement also no such plea was taken. Even at the time when PW 3 deposed about the attempt to overtake by the bus driver, no objection was raised by the counsel for the Corporation to the effect that there was no specific pleading in this regard. It is now too late for the learned counsel for the appellant to raise any objection in this behalf.
7. Apart from this even if we assume that the bus driver was not trying to overtake any other vehicle in front of his bus, the facts proved on record clearly belie the theory of the accident in the manner stated by the Corporation. If it is accepted that there was no vehicle in front of the bus it is clear that the left side of the road in front of the bus was absolutely clear and so was the case with the left side of the road in front of the jeep as admittedly there was no vehicle in front of it. In that situation, it will not be worthy of reliance to believe that the jeep was running to the extreme right of the road, i.e., on the left half portion which was meant for the traffic coming from Mathura side to Agra. Even if the jeep was being driven at a very high speed, no sane driver will take his vehicle to the extreme right tip of the road particularly when another vehicle was coming from the opposite direction on that portion of the road. It may be conceivable that there was some obstacle on the left side of the road in front of the jeep and in order to avoid it the driver of the jeep took the vehicle to his right side but that is not the case pleaded and the admitted position being that the road in front of the jeep was all clear and there was no vehicle or obstacle in front of it.
8. Apart from this, the manner in which the two vehicles had been damaged would lend more support to the version of the claimants' witnesses rather than that of the Corporation. So far as the bus is concerned, only right front corner of the vehicle has been damaged where its bumper, right headlight and some portion near the window near the driver's seat are damaged. This is obvious from Exh. A-3 and various photographs placed on record. Even the portion near the driver's window appears to have been damaged on account of the impact near the right hand front edge of the vehicle and not on account of any direct impact. On the other hand the jeep has been damaged near about the driver's seat. Since the steering wheel is undamaged, it appears that the impact was from near the front wheel towards the back of the driver's seat because of which the entire steel body of the jeep between the wheels has been ripped open and the driver's seat has been badly damaged. The position of the windscreen also shows that the impact started just near the top of the right front wheel and the same has also been totally detached. The mudguard over the right front wheel has been damaged. All this goes to show that the impact was from somewhere near the front wheel and went towards the back of the driver's seat. The front side of the jeep is intact along with its headlight and the bumper is also undamaged. It is only the portion from behind the engine to the back right hand seat that the main damage has been caused. The manner in which the jeep is found on the road after the impact with its front wheels turned slightly towards the centre of the road go to show that after the impact, the hind portion of the jeep was turned towards its left. This kind of damage to the jeep and the bus could not be caused if the jeep had been driven at a high speed on its wrong side and having come very close to the bus which had been sufficiently slowed down and at that moment the jeep was turned to the left. In that situation, the impact on the jeep would have been so much that it would have been thrown out to the left and must have toppled. Nothing of this kind admittedly happened. The impact is neither sidelong nor headlong.
9. The only theory which will fit in with the nature of the damage caused to the vehicle is the one propounded by the claimants. It appears that both the vehicles were coming on their proper side but when the bus driver tried to overtake without noticing the vehicle coming from the opposite direction, the right hand front comer of the bus had protruded towards the centre of the road or little beyond it and the driver of the jeep tried to avoid the collision when the bus suddenly appeared. It was struck in the middle of the right side of the jeep. We have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting the finding of the Tribunal that it was the bus driver who was negligent and rash in driving the vehicle.
10. Coming to the question of speed, it will be relevant to point out the preliminary accident report submitted by DW 4 himself. After mentioning the respective speeds of the bus and the jeep at 40 and 70 km. per hour, he mentioned that the bus had stopped after 70 paces while the jeep had stopped only after 10 paces after the accident. Giving adequate margin for the momentum of a vehicle, the very fact that it stopped after 70 paces as compared to 10 paces within which the jeep stopped, one is led to believe that the bus was being driven at a very high speed. The most important reason for this is that in the accident the driver of the jeep had become unconscious and he died soon thereafter. It is in evidence that probably he had applied the brakes heavily with the result that the jeep had collided (see DW 2). Even if the driver of the jeep had applied the brakes, the pressure on the brake lever would cease the moment he was injured and the jeep must have travelled thereafter only under its own momentum unaffected by the brake. In such a situation if the jeep stopped within 10 paces, it would be obvious that at that time the jeep was moving slowly, may be it had slowed down after the impact. On the contrary, the bus had moved 70 paces after the impact.
11. Much stress has been laid by Mr. Sharma that the bus was on the kacha patri and only two of its right wheels were on the pucca portion of the road. The suggestion was that the bus was on its extreme left when the accident took place. There are two photographs Exhs. 9 and 10 which are relevant for this purpose. In both these photographs, all the four wheels of the bus are seen on the kacha patri. The position of the bus after it stopped would, however, not be relevant as it had admittedly moved nearly 70 paces after the impact. A slight turn of the wheel to the left would take it to the left edge of the road or even to the kacha patri while covering 70 paces. Even though it is alleged that it was raining at the time when the accident took place and there was slush on the road due to which the jeep had skidded, the police officer who investigated the matter and who admittedly had reached the spot at about 3.15 vide Exh. 4, did not mention anything about the wheel marks on the road nor were any photographs taken the same day which would have been very helpful in determining as to how the accident occurred. From the above discussion it would, therefore, be clear that it was the bus which was being driven at a high speed and not the jeep. This again shows negligence on the part of the bus driver.
12. In agreement with the finding of the Tribunal, therefore, we hold that the accident was caused only on account of rash and negligent driving by the bus driver.
13. A faint effort was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to suggest that may be the theory put forward by both the sides was wrong and exaggerated and truth may be that both the vehicles were on the proper side but they were being driven close to the centre of the road and because of the speed even slight misjudgment might have resulted in the accident and thus both the drivers must be held to be equally guilty of causing the accident. We are not impressed by this argument at all. There was no such plea and this is not the case of any of the parties either. As we have said above the nature of the damage caused to the vehicle and in the light of the admitted facts we cannot subscribe to this theory which is accordingly rejected.
14. Coming to the question of compensation, a very faint effort was made to suggest that the multiplier applied was on the high side. We, however, do not agree. The deceased Amarnath was 42 years of age and the life expectancy being 60 years, which in our view errs on the lower side, the multiplier of 18 has rightly been taken. It is suggested that normally a multiplier of 14 or 16 is applied. We do not think it would be prudent to interfere with the view of the Tribunal as no mathematical rule can be laid down as to the multiplier. It is true that generally a multiplier of 14 to 16 is applied but that is not a rigid rule much less a circumstance which may provoke us to interfere in this matter. 30 per cent deduction has already been made on account of lump sum nature of payment which we think sufficiently brings the amount nearer to the just amount of compensation which the Tribunal is supposed to award. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned compensation determined by the Tribunal.
15. In the other case also, the age of the driver was 36 years and after determining the total amount of compensation at Rs. 66,000/-, l/3rd deduction has been made bringing the amount of compensation to Rs. 43,200/-. This amount, in our opinion, is also just and proper in the circumstances of the present case.
16. In the result, we find no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed with costs.