Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Kamla Devi And Ors. vs Balwinder Singh And Anr. on 31 October, 1992
Equivalent citations: I(1993)ACC542, 1994ACJ1177, (1993)103PLR538
JUDGMENT M.S. Liberhan, J.
1. This letters patent Appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 22-5-1985 declining the claim of the appellants for the grant of compensation on account of the death of one Ram Singh.
2. The relevant facts as put forth by the appellants are to the effect that Ram Singh motor cyclist, along with an old lady on the pillion seat, was going from Chandigarh to Rajpura. A truck was standing on the road side. When Ram Singh was crossing the truck, bus bearing registration No. PCV-2337 being driven by Balwinder Singh respondent, came from the opposite direction i.e. from Rajpura side at a high speed without blowing any horn or applying the brakes. When it approached near the truck, the right side bumper of the bus struck against the motor cycle resulting in the death of Ram Singh. The appellants viz. widow, four daughters and two minor sons of Ram Singh deceased claimed a compensation of Rs. one lac, inter alia, contending that the deceased was earning about Rs. 600/- per month while working as an Electrician in the Public Health Department, Punjab. He was likely to be promoted as a foreman. He was 40 years old at the time of his death.
3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal observed that the motor cyclist was coming at a speed of 45 to 50 kilo meters per hour and the offending bus was also coming at the same speed. The bus could not be expected to stop when a vehicle is coming from the other side. It was further observed by the Tribunal that the bus driver took all reasonable precautions and resultantly found that no rash or negligent driving can be attributed to the bus driver. So far as the compensation is concerned, by assessing the dependency at Rs. 400/- per month and after making a deduction of Rs. 10,000/- on account of ex-gratia paid to the appellants, the Tribunal assessed the compensation payable to the appellants at Rs. 38,000/-.
4. The learned Single Judge disbelieved the only eye witness i.e. P.W. 4 Ralla Singh truck driver, who was standing at the spot, solely on the ground that in the first information report lodged by him, it has been stated that horn was blown by the bus driver who also applied the breaks whereas this fact was denied by him on solemn affirmation when he stepped into the witness box.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the finding of the Tribunal as well as of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. It was contended that when a witness has denied a fact on oath, mere confronting him with respect to something recorded by a third person, by itself is not sufficient to disbelieve the witness particularly when the scribe of the F. I. R. has not been examined. The statement recorded in the F. I. R. cannot be raised to a Pedestal higher than that of a statement on oath. It does carry a presumption of truth but keeping in view our social conditions where oaths still carry a sanctity, it can be reasonably said that out of the two, the statement made on oath should be believed as the truthful statement particularly when the contradiction in the two is not something very material. Even the driver of the bus has not disputed that he was driving the bus at a speed of 50 km P. H. and did not slow down even on seeing an obstacle or a part of the road having been occupied by a standing truck. In the evening hours of winter season i.e. around 6:00 P.M. in the month of January it gets almost dark and roads ate usually busy with slow traffic. We fail to understand, how the Tribunal assessed the speed of the motor cycle at 45/S0 Km. P.H While it was crossing the truck standing on the road although in the statement of P. W. 4 Ralla Singh it has been categorically stated on oath that the speed of the motor cycle was 28/30 Km. P. H. Be that as it is, even if the motor cycle was at a little high speed, the driver of the bus had more responsibility towards the pedestrains and the light vehicles going on the road and should have been more careful, especially when he was carrying on his shoulders the responsibility of the lives of the bus passengers. The bus driver cannot be permitted to loose sight of the traffic conditions on the road. He is expected to take all precautions required to avoid the accident. He was expected to slow down on seeing the truck standing on the road especially in the evening when it was getting dark. The entire blame for the accident, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be put on the deceased motor cyclist. The statement of P. W. 4 Ralla Singh made on oath acquires further credibility when no evidence has been produced by the respondents in rebuttal. Even the bus driver-respondent No. 1 himself has not stepped into the witness box to refute the claim of the appellants.
6. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances and for the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that the appellants, on the basis of evidence which has come on record, have successfully proved that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, if not wholly, at least to the extent of 70%.
7. None has appeared to oppose the present letters patent appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that even if it is assumed that there was no fault on the part of the bus driver in the accident, even then they are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of 'no fault liability' as provided by sections 140, 144 and 217 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended, with interest. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Chander Dwievedi, 1991(2) A.C.J. 577, Smt. Somi v. Ram Kumar, (1991-2) 100 P.L.R. 349, Ratni v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1990 A.C.J. 731, Mahila Ramdei v. Nand Kumar, 1987 A.C.J. 764 and Des Rai Angra v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh, (1985-1) 87 P.L.R. 593". Learned counsel further urged that the appellants are also entitled to interest on no fault Liability compensation. As presently advised, we are in agreement with the view taken in Ram Chander Dwievedi's case (supra) and the appellants are held entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of no fault liability.
9. We find no ground even remotely to take a different view with respect to the dependency of Rs. 400/- per month fixed by the Tribunal Thus, keeping all the factors into consideration i.e. the age of deceased, his dependency, longivity as well as the contributory negligence, applying a multiplier of '10' would in our view, be granting just and reasonable compensation to the appellants. Resultantly, by rounding up the figure, we assess the compensation to which the appellants are entitled to in equal shares, at Rs. 50.000/- which is nothing but peanuts, for the life of a poor man lost in the accident which the benevolent welfare State should have granted by itself, but for which, for reasons best known granted to the respondents, they have been made the appellants fight the litigation upto the letters patent appeal stage. Although the appellants were entitled to have a multiplier of '16' but keeping in view the fact of contributory negligence of the deceased-motor cyclist to the extent of 30%, we have reduced the multiplier to '10'.
10. In view of the observations made above, we award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with 12% per annum interest from the date of accident till the date of payment to the appellants in equal shares. The letters Patent appeal is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs.