V.K. Gupta, J. - These 14 appeals preferred by the State Road Transport Corporation against the judgments/awards dated 18-3-1993 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Poonch (Tribunal for short) relate to and arise out of the deaths of as many persons from a motor accident which took place on the fateful day of August 8,1988 at a place called Drungli nallah, near about and under Police Station Poonch town. The claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act were filed before the Tribunal by the dependants and legal representatives of the 14 unfortunate victims of the accident wherein varying amounts of compensation were claimed which led to the passing of the impugned awards by the Tribunal whereby he awarded different amounts of compensation to these surviving unlucky dependants and legal representatives of the deceased.

2. On Aug. 8, 1988, Bus No. JKZ-412 loaded with passengers left Jammu in the morning for Poonch town, a distance of about 225 Kilometers. It was little known at that time that this bus was on its last journey, as destiny had it in store. At about 6 P.M. that very evening when the bus reached at Drungli nallah, which was a just short of Poonch town, its final destination, the passengers in the bus and other persons noticed that the nallah was flooded with water and was running in spate. Some other vehicles had also reached there, either before the arrival of this bus or in the meanwhile and there was a general feeling among the people there that the level of the water in the nallah because of the flood as also the current of the water were so dangerous that it should be practically impossible for the bus or for that matter any other vehicles to cross over. The driver of bus No. JKZ-412 however, had a different feeling. He thought that he would have the better knowledge of the water level and its current and that it was slightly little adventure for him to cross the nallah, without any attending adverse consequences. Despite protestation from the passengers and despite their requests and pleas, the driver put the bus in motion and headed onwards for final destination. The end came soon thereafter. Just as the bus reached,at a point near about middle of the nallah, it got stuck amidst the furious angry current of water as also got drenched in its depth, simultaneously its engine having stopped working because of the water having gushed into the entire system. The result was well known and on expected lines.

3. Mr. Lehar, learned counsel for the appellant- corporation, which owns the bus, made an interesting argument with regard to the question of culpability of the driver and consequential vicarious liability of the appellant. According to Mr. Lehar, the passengers were themselves responsible for the accident, at least they were responsible for contributory part, if not for the main act because they could have stopped the driver from putting the vehicle into the stream of water and had they done so, the driver would not have ventured into this mis-adventure. The argument, even though one of desperation does look attractive on first sight, but when one examines its merits closely, one finds that it does not require very deep and thoughtful consideration. It is common knowledge that a driver sitting at the steering wheel of a bus is in such a commanding position that the role of the passengers in deciding about the movement of the bus and its course is totally non-existent. This is more so in a remote backward area like Poonch where neither the people tend to challenge the authority of a driver of a bus nor do they doubt his bona-fide intention nor do they suspect lack of prudence or common sense on his part. It is a common knowledge that the persons generally go along with the driver as the bus cruises on its course, never suspecting the skills of the driver nor involving themselves in any controversy with him regarding the manner in which the bus is being driven, its speed, the condition of the road, the manner in which it overtakes other vehicles or is overtaken, or for that matter; even the patent defects and technical deficiencies with which it may be suffering, and yet being plied on the road with full speed and vigour. Not only that, most of the passengers in our country, travelling in buses, more-so in rural areas, and much more-so in backward rural areas do not even have as lightes tinkling or knowledge about the various nuances of driving, its pitfalls or its complexities, Most of the times one finds the passengers, albeit a large majority of them sleeping while they are travelling.

4. The person steering a bus, therefore, called by the name of driver, is solely responsible for all acts done in the course of its driving and if, therefore: an accident takes place or a mishap occurs, he alone is to be held responsible and a passenger or passengers travelling in the bus cannot be fastened with any liability in relation to such an accident or a mishap, unless a positive act is specifically attributed to a passenger or passengers which, in a given situation may be alleged to form the basis of the accident or the mishap. In the present case we are not concerned with such a situation, as none like it exists.

5. The driver, therefore, was solely responsible for his act of foolishly, negligently and rashly taking the vehicle into the nallah, despite his knowledge that the nallah was flooded with furious angry current of water, that it was in a spate and that the water level of the current would not allow any one to come near about it. Despite all this, the driver proceeded on his suicidal mission, on the great mis-adventure, as one may call it. The result was on expected lines, may be not on the hoped ones. As they say, one knows and expects that an adversity may follow as a result of a mis-adventure or a mishap because of rashness and negligence, yet one hopes that it may ultimately not happen and that one might scrape through with some luck. The dame luck, however, does not always favour. The Tribunal, was therefore, correct in deciding the issue of rashness and negligence against the appellant and in favour of the claimants in the claim petitions before him. That now takes me to the question of quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants in 14 claim petitions.

6. I have very carefully perused the record of the Tribunal as also seen the evidence on the file and considered the material documents placed on record by the claimants. But for three claim petitions, which I shall take up one by one a little later, I am convinced that the quantum of compensation decided by the Tribunal and the awards passed thereupon by him in the remaining 11 cases does not require any interference by me in these appeals because in each of the 11 cases, the Tribunal has followed well established principles governing the determination of compensation amount, with due application of the facts of each case and other attending circumstances. I do not therefore, propose to interfere in 11 appeals out of 14.

7. In CIMA No.85/93, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,52,800/- as the total compensation amount in favour of the claimants-respondents. This case arose out of the death of one Amrik Singh who was working as a Sub-Inspector in Police at the time of his death and whose age was stated to be 44 years. As per documentary evidence produced in the Tribunal, the deceased was drawing total emoluments of Rs.2380/- per month. The Tribunal has assessed annual dependency of the claimants at Rs.25,200/-per annum on consideration that out of his total monthly pay of Rs.2380/-, he would be spending Rs.280/- on his person per month and contributing rest of the amount for the family. On this amount of Rs.25,200/- the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 14 and therefore, assessed and computed the compensation amount of Rs.3,52,800/-. In my view the assessment is on the higher side and the Tribunal has not correctly applied the multiplier nor has it correctly assessed annual dependency of the claimants, if the monthly gross emoluments of the deceased were to the tune of Rs.2380/-, it can safely be said that he would not be contributing more than Rs.1500-1800 towards his family. Taking that figure into account, one can safely say that the annual dependency of the claimants over the deceased was in the range of Rs.20,000/- or there about and if one applies the multiplier of 12 to this income, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.2.40 lakhs. The multiplier of 12 in respect of a deceased whose age was 44 years cannot at all be called to be on the lower side. In fact this multiplier is slightly on the higher side than the usual one. Considering all the facts and circumstances, I reduce total compensation amount in this case from Rs.3,52,800/- to Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees 2.40 lakhs).

8. In CIMA No. 96/93 the Tribunal has awarded total compensation amount of Rs. 71088/-. This case related to the death of one Kumari Suman Rajput. The claimants are the mother and daughter respectively of the deceased Kumari Suman Rajput. It was alleged that she was working as a Beautician in Kajal Beauty Parlour in Pacca Danga, Jammu and her age at the time of death was 30 years and she was earning more than 800/- per month. No evidence whatsoever was led by the claimants before the Tribunal either regarding the age or the income of the deceased. This has been observed by the Tribunal also in the impugned award and yet, the Tribunal presumed the age of deceased at 35 years and assessed her monthly income at Rs. 600/-. One is at a total loss to understand as to on what basis did the Tribunal come to this conclusion. In the total absence of any evidence or any material on record either regarding the age of the deceased or her occupation or income, the Tribunal should not have hazarded in guessing these two items. Because the claimants failed to produce any evidence, all that could be said on the part of deceased was that she was a house wife of reasonable age. That being the case, total compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- should have been enough to meet the ends of justice because this would be reasonable amount in the facts and circumstances of the case. I, therefore, reduce the) compensation amount in this case from Rs. 71088/-to Rs. 50,000/-.

9. Lastly we deal with CIMA No. 95/93 in which the Tribunal has passed his award for Rs. 2,59,200/-. This is based on the consideration that the deceased was employed as a craft teacher in the Handicraft Department and was drawing Rs. 1316/- per month as his emoluments. His age was taken to be around 30 years. In addition to his monthly salary of Rs. 1316/- the Tribunal also assessed his extra income per month at Rs. 300/- by working over time. No evidence was led by the claimants with regard to the exact age of the deceased and there was a variance in the statements of witnesses. Yet I do not dispute the finding of the Tribunal regarding the age of the deceased as being 30 years. What however, is disputed is the assessment of his income and the annual dependency of the claimants. The Tribunal was not correct in presuming extra income of the deceased at Rs. 300/- per month because this was not established by any cogent evidence before him. Rather the deceased being a regular Government employee was not supposed to involve himself in any private business or vocation. The admitted amount of his emoluments was Rs. 1316/- per month. Out of this amount, the deceased must have been spending roughly around Rs. 400-500 over himself (the Tribunal has assessed this figure at Rs. 416/- per month). On a conservative estimate, therefore, I take the figure of his personal spending even less than Rs.s 400/- per month and yet the monthly amount which would go to the family would be less than Rs. 1000/-. However, on a liberal assessment I consider Rs. 1000/- per month as dependency of the family over the deceased and on that calculation, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 12000/- because of the lack of specific proof relating to the age of the deceased and the guess of the Tribunal about this age being 30 (which can be subject to variance), also multiplier of 16 to the amount of Rs. 12000/- would be a reasonable multiplier in this case. On that being done, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,92,000/-. The amount of compensation in this case, therefore, is reduced from the 2,59,200/- to Rs. 1,92,000/- (Rupees one lakh and ninety two thousand).

10. 11 appeals, excluding three appeals mentioned above are dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 1000/- per case and the awards in all the 11 cases are upheld in toto. The other three appeals as indicated above are partly allowed only to the extent of reduction of the awarded amounts as indicated against each in the foregoing paras. In all these three cases also the rest of the award is upheld. In these three appeals also, respondents are awarded costs of Rs. 1000/- in each case.

11. If the appellant has deposited any amount or amounts in this court in these appeals, the respondents shall be at liberty to withdraw the same on making appropriate applications for this purpose before the Additional Registrar, who on this being done shall disburse the same to the respondents on proper verification by their learned counsel and against appropriate receipts. Connected CMPs shall stand disposed of.