Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Gyatri Devi Widow Of Kuldip Singh ... vs Satbir Son Of Shri Richhpal And Others on 9 January, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.1918 of 1997 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1918 of 1997
Date of Decision.09.01.2013
Smt. Gyatri Devi widow of Kuldip Singh and others
.....Appellants
Versus
Satbir son of Shri Richhpal and others .......Respondents
Present: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana
for respondent No.3.
Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes/No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation arising out of an accident where the 1st claimant's husband died. The accident had taken place when the deceased, who was going on a scooter was overtaking a private bus and the Haryana Roadways bus, which was coming in the opposite direction dashed against it. One Suresh, who was going on scooter as a pillion rider driven by one Surya Prakash had lodged the FIR and he had also testified in the evidence that the accident had taken place when the deceased was overtaking the private bus. Suresh, who was examined, grew more cautious and gave a FAO No.1918 of 1997 -2- statement that the accident had taken place after the Haryana Roadways crossed the private bus and dashed against him on the wrong side of the road. The Tribunal found the contradiction between the evidence of two witnesses and examined it in the context of the evidence given by the driver of the Haryana Roadways itself. According to him the scooter had come to the wrong side of the road while overtaking the private bus and the accident had taken place only on account of the negligent driving of the scooterist.
2. In my view, the entire appreciation of evidence has been faulty. The accident had taken place on main road and not within the town. If the scooterist was committing a wrong judgment in assuming that he would be able to cross the private bus before the bus coming from the opposite direction had crossed the private bus then the collision could not have taken place unless the driver of the bus was also in some manner negligent. If it was not within the town and it was on a main road outside the town, there ought to have been sufficient space for more than two vehicles to pass at the same time. There ought to have been evidence by the driver himself to the effect that he pulled the vehicle to the further left and still there was no place for him to avoid the collision. All that he wanted to say was that the scooterist was trying to overtake the private bus and had come to the extreme right side of the road. I cannot believe such a contention, for on a broad main road a person, who was overtaking a private vehicle would have provided only sufficient width in order that he was provided with safe distance between himself and the vehicle, which he was overtaking. If the driver of the bus coming from the opposite direction had been FAO No.1918 of 1997 -3- more cautious, he could have avoided the collision by pulling towards further left. I will find the negligence attributed wholly to the deceased as improper and if at all it must only be taken that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence and the driver of the bus was also responsible for the collision. I will apportion the liability between the deceased scooterist and the driver of the bus in the ratio of 50:50 and proceeded to determine the compensation on that basis.
3. The deceased was a Lecturer in a Government school on a salary of ` 6097/-. There was a sure prospect of future increase and applying the scales as suggested by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121, I would provide for 50% increase on the same and take the average income to be ` 9145/-. I will provide for 1/4th deduction and take the contribution to the family to be ` 6858/-, apply a multiplier of 17 as suitable to the age of the deceased. The loss of dependency will be ` 13,99,032/-. This will suffer an abatement of 50% having regard to the finding that he had been guilty of negligence contributed to the extent of 50%. The ultimate loss of dependency would be ` 6,99,516/-. To this must be added also the loss of consortium to the wife at ` 5,000/-, ` 2500/- for minor daughter towards loss of love and affection and a further sum of ` 7500/- towards funeral expenses and loss to estate. This amount of ` 15,000/- will also suffer 50% abatement and the total compensation payable would be ` 7,07,016/-. The amount shall also bear interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount shall be shared in the ratio of 2:2:1 between the wife, daughter and mother. The liability shall be on the Haryana Roadways and the claimant shall FAO No.1918 of 1997 -4- have a right of enforcement against the same.
4. The award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 09, 2013 Pankaj*