S.B. Wad, J.
1. FAO 58/74 is filed by the DTC against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal granting Rs. 79,150/- towards compensation for the death of Mr. Kulbhushan Jolly caused by bus No. DLP 657, belonging to the D.T.C. in a road accident. FAO. 111/74 is filed by the claimants for the enhancement of compensation.
2. The accident took place on 13-2-66 on the Mehrauli Road, at Point 'T', on the crossing towards Jorbagh.
3. The claimants stated that the deceased was returning home after seeing his relative at Kalka Colony, New Delhi on his scooter. When he reached Point 'T' at the crossing, coming from Jorbagh, bus No. DLP 657 came from Mehrauli Road in great speed and struck the scooter. The deceased was admitted to the Safdarjung Hospital, where he died on 18-2-66 of the injuries. PW/1, Dr. M.K Guha has testified that the death was due to the accident. Apart from this evidence, the petitioners have examined Sewa Singh PW/3, Ramesh Chand, PW/4; Des Raj PW/5 and Shri S.P. Watel Advocate, PW/6. The version of the respondents is that it was the deceased who was negligent at the turn and in an attempt to overtake the bus hit against it. The respondents have examined Barkat Lal RW/1, Girdhar Parshad RW/2, G.N. Gaur RW/3 and Jai Bhagwan RW/4, the driver of the vehicle.
4. After going through the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the DTC bus was guilty of violation of Regulation 6 of the 10th Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act as the bus did not slow down when approaching the road intersection. The Tribunal also found that before turning to the right side the bus did not give any signal. At the same time, the Tribunal found that the deceased was also guilty of negligence in as much as in his effort to reach ahead of the bus on the crossing, the scooter did not slow down.
5. I am taken through the evidence on record. On appreciation of the evidence, I find that the Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence is correct. There is, however, no merit in the appeal of the DTC. FAO 58/74 is, thereforee, dismissed.
6. The Tribunal rightly found that the deceased was contributing Rs. 1,000/- per month towards his family support. This was on the basis of the evidence of the widow, Mrs. Kanta Jolly. The Tribunal has accepted the multiplier of 30 on the basis that the deceased was only 35 years old. The Tribunal thus found that the net contribution of the deceased towards his family would have been Rs. 3,60,000/-. But, as the deceased has contributed to the negligence this amount was reduced by 50 per cent. The Tribunal was right up to this stags. But, thereafter, the deductions made by the Tribunal are unwarranted. The Tribunal deducted Rs. 42,000/- which the widow was to get from the Insurance Company. The Tribunal also deducted Rs. 18,982/- which the deceased was entitled to receive from the third party. It also reduced a sum of Rs. 10,516/- on similar grounds. The Tribunal then deducted Rs. 15,375/- as 1/10th of the house whose market value was raised to Rs. 1,53,000/- (from Rs. 40,000/-) in 1974 when the Tribunal pronounced the award. I do not think that any of these sums can be deducted as they are based on uncertainties. The claimants have preferred a claim of Rs. 1,70,000/- in their appeal. I, thereforee, award a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- to the claimants. They are also entitled to 6 per cent simple interest from March 1970. Some amounts are paid to the claimants under the order of this Court passed on 25-3-74. The DTC will get the credit of the said payment as also the interest thereon. The DTC shall draw up a cheque for the enhanced amount of compensation and the interest thereon and deposit the same with the Registrar of this Court on or before 30th April 1986. The Registrar shall summon the parties and disburse the amount.
FAO 111/74 is allowed with costs.