IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No. 296 of 2010 & Cross Objection No. 293 of 2011. Date of Decision: 23.8.2011 HRTC and another … Appellants. Versus. Charan Dassi and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellants: Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 to 6: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. For the respondents No. 7 & 8: Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). 1. This appeal by the HRTC is directed against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr dated 31.5.2010 whereby the claimants, who are the widow and children of late Shri Nand Lal, have been awarded compensation of Rs.4,46,000/- alongwith interest. 2. The undisputed facts are that Nand Lal was travelling in Bus No.HP-07-5287, which met with an accident. The claimants who are the widow and children of Nand Lal filed the claim petition. The accident was not denied and the fact that Nand Lal was 2 travelling in the bus was also not denied. However, the case of the HRTC was that Shri Nand Lal was himself guilty of contributory negligence because he was standing on the stairs of bus without bolting the door and the door suddenly flew open and he fell down and sustained injuries. Even if this version of the HRTC is accepted to be gospel truth this shows negligence of the HRTC and not of the deceased Nand Lal. When a passenger gets inside the bus it is the duty of the conductor to ensure that the door is bolted. It is also the duty of the HRTC to ensure that the doors of its buses do not fly open only because of bumps and jerks. Therefore, as far as the issue of negligence is concerned no error can be found in the order of the learned Tribunal. 3. To prove the income of the deceased, the claimants have examined Shri Vipin Mittal, who stated that he used to pay Rs.6000/- per month to Shri Nand Lal. However, he could not produce any document to show that he is owner of Mittal Industries nor could he produce any documentary evidence to show what the amount being paid by him to the deceased. He admits that no information was given to the Labour Officer about the employment of the deceased. According to him he had maintained the pay register but the same 3 was also not produced in Court. In the absence of any proof of income the bald statement of the employer could not be accepted. 4. However, as far as the quantum is concerned, I am constrained to observe that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the well settled principle with regard to the award of compensation. From the evidence on record, which has not even been discussed by the learned Tribunal, it is apparent that two of the daughters Mamta Devi and Nisha Devi were married and living with their respective husbands. Two sons were married having their separate families and doing their own work. Only one daughter Vijay Kumari was unmarried at the relevant time. Therefore, claimants No. 2 to 5 by no stretch of imagination were dependent on the deceased. 5. The Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, has clearly held that normally 1/3rd of the income of the deceased should be deducted for his personal expenses. However, where the number of dependent is large the personal expenses of the deceased can be reduced to 1/4th. In the present case, the only persons dependent on the deceased were his widow and one daughter and therefore, 1/3rd should 4 have been deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Since the income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/- per month or Rs.48,000/- per year, if 1/3rd is deducted loss of dependency works out to Rs.32,000/- per year. 6. Coming to the question of multiplier, it stands proved on record that the deceased was aged about 57 years at the time of the accident. The extract of the Pariwar register has been placed on record by the claimants themselves as Ext.PY and this shows that Nand Lal was born in the year 1950. The accident took place on 19.6.2007. Therefore, the deceased was about 57 of age at the time of the accident. Applying the principle laid down in Sarla Verma and others (supra) the relevant multiplier in the case of the deceased aged 56 to 60 years is 9 and therefore, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.2,88,000/-. In addition thereto the widow is awarded Rs.20,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- is awarded as conventional damages and Rs.12,000/- for funeral expenses, etc. Therefore, the total compensation payable to the claimants works out to Rs.3,30,000/-. I also find that the apportionment is highly improper. It should have been the widow who should have been given the major share of the compensation. Therefore, 5 out of this amount of Rs.3,30,000/- a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- is awarded to the widow and Rs.80,000/- is awarded to the unmarried daughter Vijay Kumari. None of the other claimants are entitled to any amount whatsoever. 7. The amount falling to the share of the aforesaid two persons shall be paid to them alongwith interest by remitting the same to their bank accounts, details whereof have been given in the application. The excess amount shall be refunded to the HRTC by remitting the same to its bank account. 8. The award of the learned Tribunal is accordingly modified and the compensation awarded to the claimants reduced from 4,46,000/- to Rs.3,30,000/-. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate awarded by the learned Tribunal. In view of the fact that the awarded amount has been reduced the cross objections are rejected. No costs. 23rd August, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.