Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritam Kaur And Ors. vs Gopal Chand And Ors. on 6 May, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1999ACJ945, (1997)117PLR716
Author: H.S. Bedi
Bench: H.S. Bedi
JUDGMENT H.S. Badi, J.
1. On 11th November, 1985, the deceased Jasmer Singh and his brother Nasib Singh were going from Kurali towards Patiala on a bicycle. Jasmer Singh was paddling the cycle, Whereas Nasib Singh was sitting on the rear seat. At about 7/8 p.m., when they were near Village Chanalan, a truck bearing registration No. CHW-4727 came from behind and dashed against the cycle, on which both Jasmer Singh and Nasib Singh fell down on the ground. Jasmer Singh received multiple injuries and was removed to the village by Nasib Singh and after some time, the truck driver and its owner i.e. Gopal Chand and Baldev Singh respectively came to the village and requested the deceased not to lodge a report and promised that they would pay compensation to Jasmer Singh who was then alive. Jasmer Singh, however, died at about 12 mid night on account of the injuries that he had sustained and was cremated in the village thereafter. After the cremation of the deceased, both the driver and owner of the offending truck i.e. respondents No. 1 and 2 refused to pay the compensation, on which an FIR was lodged in Police Station, Kurali. The present claim application was also preferred by the heirs of the deceased i.e. his wife Pritam Kaur and his two minor children Sarabjit Kaur and Bhupinder Singh on account of his death.
2. The respondents put in appearance and while admitting the factum of the accident, pleaded that the same had not taken place, due to negligence of the truck-driver. The Insurance Company i.e. respondent No. 3 also put in appearance and pleaded in the like manner.
3. The parties went on trial on the following issues:-
(1) Whether the accident in question in which Jasmer Singh died was the result of rash and negligent driving of truck No. CHW-4727 by its driver respondent No. 1 as alleged? OPP. (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP. (3) Relief.
4. On Issue No. 1 the Tribunal held that it stood proved that the accident of the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Jasmer Singh and the truck driver in equal shares. On Issue No. 2, it was found that the salary of the deceased at the time of the death was Rs. 853.60 and after computing the annual dependency of Rs. 500/- in the hands of the claimants, and applying a multiplier of 16, and making a cut of 50% on account of the contributory negligence of the deceased, granted a compensation of Rs. 48,000/- alongwith interest Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants whereas Cross-objections have been preferred by respondent No. 3.
5. Mr. R.K. Battas, the learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings of the Tribunal on the question of contributory negligency as also on the quantum of compensation. He has alleged that it had come on record that the accident had taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. the driver of the truck in question and; Jasmer Singh deceased had not contributed towards the accident whatsoever.
6. I have gone through the findings of the Tribunal on this score and find that some modification in the compensation is called for. It is proved (as has, been noted by the Tribunal) that the truck had come from the rear side and it is also the admitted case that the rear side of the truck had struck the cycle. It cannot, therefore, be said that the truck driver was entirely at fault, but at the same time, it cannot be said that Jasmer Singh was guilty to the extent of 50% as has been found by the Tribunal. It is, therefore, evident that the truck struck the cycle after having over taken it was the duty of truck driver to have taken maximum care to avoid the accident by overtaking the cycle leaving enough room to the cycle. I am, therefore, of the opinion that as far as the contributory negligence is concerned, the same is to be fastened on Jasmer Singh deceased and the truck driver to the extent of 25% and 75% respectively-
7. Mr. Battas has then argued that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate as the dependency had not been properly determined. I too, am, of the opening that some enhancement in the compensation is also called for. Taking the monthly income of the deceased to be 859/- and taking the fact that he would have spent Rs. 150/- p.m. on himself, the monthly income left in the hands of his family would come to Rs. 700/- making a total of Rs. 64,00/- and applying a multiplier of 16 on this amount, as the deceased was 30 years of age at the time of his accident, a sum of Rs. 134,400/- rounded of to Rs. 1,35,000/- would ordinarily have been awardable as compensation to the claimants but in view of the fact that 25% of the negligence had been contributed by Jasmer Singh, the compensation payable by the respondents would come to Rs. 90,000/-. The claimants would also be entitled to interest on this amount in the manner determined by the Tribunal. This appeal is allowed in the above terms, whereas the X-objections are dismissed.