IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. A.O. NO.29-D of 2003 (Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) District : Pithoragarh. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Regional Manager, Kumaon Region, District Nainita, Uttaranchal. ………….…Appellant, Versus 1. Sri Durga Singh M anaula s/o Sri Kharak Singh Manaula, 2. Smt. Mohini Devi w/o Sri Durga Singh Manaula, R/o Village Bajani (Jaurasi), Tahsil Didihat, District Pithoragarh, Uttaranchal. ……..….Respondents. Sri A.N. Sharma/Sri PS Rawat, Advs. For appellant, Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, for respondents. September 20, 2004. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J., Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Present appeal is from the judgment dated 13.2.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pithoragarh in M.A.C. No.205 of 1997, Durga Singh Manaula and another vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, awarding compensation of Rs.3,77,936/- alongwith interest at 9% p.a. On 25.6.1997 at Ghat, District Pithoragarh, the offending bus No.UP 02B/8937 of the appellant fell into the gorge due to fast and rash driving by its driver and its passenger Sri Kailash Singh Manaula, serving in Indian Army with a salary of Rs.3500/- died. According to the petition case, he was unmarried and a player with bright prospects. The owner admitted the accident but alleged that it was due to sudden road breakage and the accident was a vis major. On the pleadings of the parties, the lenred Tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimant examined Durga Singh Manaula, father of the deceased and a co-passenger of the deceased, Devraj Singh, while the opposite party examined the conductor of the offending bus. The learned Tribunal after trial has held the bus driver responsible for the accident and awarded the compensation by applying a multiplier of 16 after due deduction of one-third amount as personal expenses of the deceased. Aggrieved by the judgment, the opposite party has preferred this appeal. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant before us that there is no evidence about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the Tribunal did not consider that the respondent is getting pension and because the appellant had already paid Rs. 72,000/- as compensation to the claimants, the claim petition was liable to be set aside and lastly that the award is excessive. We have heard the lenred counsel and perused the impugned judgment and documents on record. So far as rash and negligent driving is concerned, the co-passenger Devraj Singh PW2 has clearly testified that the driver paid no heed to the objection of the passengers and drove fast in order to reach Rudrapur in time. The witness has further stated that had the bus been driven at moderate speed, the accident would not have occurred. The statement of defence witness that accident took plce due to debris on the road is no defence because the driver has to drive with his eyes wide open to meet such eventuality. If he fails in his duty to drive carefully, then consequences will certainly follow and the driver cannot shirk his responsibility by any lame excuse. Therefore, we find no force in the argument raised on behalf of the appellant on this point. As regards dismissal of the petition as the opposite party has already paid Rs. 72,000/- to the claimants, the argument has no force as the claimants are free to file their claim if they are not satisfied with this amount. There should be no grievance to the appellant about it because the amount of Rs.72,000/- paid to the claimant No.1 by the appellant before filing the claim petition, has already been deducted by the Tribunal from the compensation awarded by it and pension, if any, is not to be taken note of while assessing compensation. We also find that in the circumstances of the present case, since the deceased was unmarried, the learned Tribunal has considered the age of his parents and applied the multiplier of 16 which in our view was a proper multiplier to be used. Nothing has been shown to us to enable us to differ from the findings recorded by the lenred Tribunal. No other point was raised before us on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, we are of the view that this appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order is upheld. No order as to costs. The amount in deposit with Court shall be remitted back to the MACT concerned for being paid to the claimants. (B.S. Verma, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.) SPA/20.9.04