S.S. Sodhi, J.

1. Denial of compensation to the claimants on the ground that they had failed to prove negligence of the offending bus driver cannot indeed be sustained.

2. Hardip Singh and his two companions on the motor cycle were killed in an accident with the Punjab Roadways but PUH 5667 coming from the opposite direction. This happened on October 22, 1981, at about 8.30 p.m. on the Phagwara-Hoshiarpur road.

3. According to the claimants, the motor-cycle was being driven on its correct side of the road when the bus coming from the opposite direction at a very fast speed suddenly turned to its wrong side, knocked down the motor cycle and ran into a tree on its right.

4. The version of the respondents, on the other hand, was that the bus was being driven on its correct side at normal speed and it was the motor cycle which was being driven rashly and negligently. It was said that when the motor cycle came near the bus, it suddenly turned towards its right. Seeing this, in order to avoid the accident, the bus driver turned it towards its right, but the motorcycle came and collided with the bus. It was also alleged that the three persons on the motor cycle were under the influence of liquor.

5. The case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of P.W. 5 Gurmukh Singh who deposed that both the motor cycle and the bus coming from opposite directions were travelling on their correct side when the right side of the bus hit into the motor cycle and then struck against a mango tree on its right. The motor cycle, it was said, was coming in the middle of the road.

6. Next to note is the testimony of P.W. 4 Sadhu Ram, whose shop was near the place of accident. It was on his statement that the first information report relating to this accident Exhibit P. 5 was recorded. The version stated there was in consonance with the case as put-forth by the claimants, but in the witness-box he did not support it. He deposed that he could not say at what speed the bus was coming at the time of the accident, nor on which side of the road the bus and the motor cycle were travelling as, he stated, he came to know of the accident only after it had taken place. He was duly confronted with his statement in the first information report but he denied having stated what was recorded therein.

7. The bus driver R.W. 1 Hardip Singh deposed that the motor cycle was first diverted towards its right side of the road as a result of which he turned his bus to his right, but then the moter cyclist suddenly turned to his left and hit against the bus.

8. It may be mentioned here that there is no material on record to corroborate the assertion of the respondents that any of the persons travelling on the motor cycle were under the influence of liquor. All three of them died at the spot as a result of this accident.

9. The most pertinent and deciding factor that emerges from the evidence on record is the fact of the bus turning to its right and hitting against a tree on that side. This amply corroborates the claimants version that the accident occurred when the bus suddenly turned to its right. It is apparent that the bus was coming at an uncontrolable speed. Had it been otherwise, it would not have gone off the road and hit into a tree. At any rate, if the bus driver had seen the motor cyclist driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner from some distance, he could very well have slowed down the speed of his bus and taken it more towards its left. In other words, failure on the part of the bus driver to take steps to avoid the accident, even it be taken that the motor cycle was not being driven in a safe and proper manner, is writ large.

10. Taking an overall view of the circumstances in which the accident occurred in the right of the evidence as discussed, the blame for this accident must be placed wholly upon the bus driver. The finding of the Tribunal to the contrary cannot, therefore, be sustained.

11. Hardip Singh deceased was only 27 years of age at the time of his death. He died leaving behind his 50-years old mother, his young widow and a minor son, who were all dependent upon him. Hardip Singh was employed as Registration Clerk in the Tehsil Office, Hoshiarpur. According to P.W. 3 Ashok Kumar, the Bills Clerk, his total emoluments were a little over Rs. 680/- per month. Applying here the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 PLR 1 in so far as they are relevant to the circumstances and situation of the claimants and the deceased, 16 would clearly be the appropriate multiplier to be applied and the dependency deserves to be assessed at around Rs. 5000/- per annum. This would work out to Rs. 80,000/-. The claimants are accordingly hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation, which he shall be entitled to along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of payment of the amount awarded. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each shall be payable to the mother and the minor son of the deceased and the balance to his widow. The amount payable to the minor claimant shall be paid to him in such manner as the Tribunal may deem to be in his best interest. The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.

12. This appeal is accordingly hereby accepted with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 500/-.