Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Amandeep Singh on 27 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2002ACJ906
Author: Mehtab S. Gill
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill
JUDGMENT S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. All these appeals (F.A.O. Nos. 1493 to 1505 of 2000) arise from a common judgment in respect of 13 claim petitions and were heard together and arc being disposed of by this common judgment. The particulars of thesc appeals are as under :-
Appeal No. M.A .CA pp.No. Name of the deceased/injured Whether fatal or injured Age (years) Compcnsation awarded 1493/2000 105-T Gulzar Singh Died on the spot 38 3.65 lacs 1502/2000 106-T Kajwant Kaur
-do-34
2.75 lacs 1503/2000 107-T Pricam Singli
-do-
552.45 lacs 1498/2000 08-T Gurcharan Singh
-do-
561. 97 lacs 1499/2000 09-T Harnani Kaur
-do-
6095.000/-
1505/2000 10-T Gagandecp Kaur injured 1 25,000/-
1504/2000 11-T Amandeep Singh injured 09 25,000/-
1495/2000 12-T Sarajbir Singh injured 13 1.25 lac 1494/2000 13-T Avtar Singh Died after five days 45 3.3. lac 1497/2000 14-T Gurdeep Singh Declared died oil reaching hospital 52 2.45 lacs 1496/2000 115-T Jaswant Singh Died on the spot.
353.65 lac 1509/2000 116-T Kaka Singh
-do-
1055,000/-
1501/2000 117-T Guddi Declared died on reaching hospital.
0655,000/-
2. The accident took place between bus No. HR 37 1166 owned by the appellants and driven by the pro-forma respondent and the Trex jeep No. DL-1CD-
6231 driven by one Samitter Singh. The injured and the deceased were passengers in the jeep. The accident look place on Sept. 9, 1996 at about 10.15 PM. It is the ease of the claimant-respondents that on the fateful evening when the jeep was about 200 yards short of Sarsini bus stand on the Chandigarh-Ambala road near Lalru, it was being followed by a car. The bus came from opposite side and was driven by Bal Krishan (now deceased). It being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came on the wrong side of the road and hit the jeep. It was contended by the respondent-claimants that the jeep was being driven on the correct side of the road at slow speed.
3. Amrik Singh, Manjit Singh and Ajit Singh were passengers of Maruli car following the jeep. They had witnessed the accident. They were examined as eyewitnesses. Appellants examined the conductor as RW-1 and Mechanic as RW- 2.
4. The case of the appellants is that it was a rainy night and when the bus reached near Lalru, the driver of the bus saw that a jeep was corning in rash find negligent manner with four head lights on. The driver of the bus anticipated the danger and stopped the bus on the left side of the road but the driver of the jeep could not control his Jeep and hit the jeep against the standing bus and there was no negligence of the bus driver. After recording evidence, the Tribunal awarded the amounts as mentioned above. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Appellants have challenged the awards made in the above petitions in these appeals.
5. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that Ihe driver of the bus was not negligent. Of course, the bus driver has died subsequently and hence he could not be examined. As mentioned above, the appellanls had examined the conductor of the bus - Satinder Singh at RW-1 and Mechanic Roshan Lal at RW-2. R. W. 1 stated in their deposition that the bus left Narnaul at 7.30 PM and was bound for Chandigarh. The bus was being driven by Bal Kishan, who died about six months back. He has further stated that the bus reached Panipat at about 1.00 AM on the morning of September 9, 1996. The bus suffered a break down on account of slippage of the clutch plates near Gharaunda. This witness then went to Chandigarh to inform about it and relumed to the bus along with mechanic Roshan Lal. The Mechanic repaired the bus and they set out from Gharaunda at 6.00 PM for Chandigarh. At 10.30 PM, the bus reached near Lalru. It is staled that the bus was being driven at a normal speed and ajeep came from the opposite side and it was being driven at a fast speed. The Jeep hit the driver side of the bus and over-turned near the bus and the mechanic who was sitting in front seat of the bus and the driver of the bus were injured. Similar is the deposition of RW-2 Roshan Lat, Mechanic.
6. The depositions of these two witnesses materially differs from the stand taken by the appellants that the bus was stopped by the driver because of the anticipated accident. This infirmity which goes to the root of the case cannot be ever-looked. The contention in the written statement that the bus was stopped was therefore, given go-bye by the witnesses of the appellants. The witnesses of the claimant-respondents Am-rik Singh AW-9 has deposed Ihe Jeep was driven at a slow speed. Looking into the evidence of both the sides and considering the change in the stand taken by the witness of the appellants, learned Tribunal's findings that the driver of Ihe bus was negligent cannot be said to be not correct.
7. The question regarding contributory negligence is raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. However, it is not material so far as the claimants-respondents are concerned. The claims are regarding Ihe death and injuries caused to the passengers of Ihe Jeep and the passengers cannot be said to be guilly of contributory negligence. This can at the most be a case of composite negligence. In Ihese circumstances, if at all, the jeep driver is also held to be negligent, the claimants can claim the amount from one of the tort teasers leaving thai said tort feaser to have his remedy of recovery of the amounl which can be recovered from the other tort feaser.
8. The case put up by the appellants is that the Jeep was driven with four head lights. Learned Tribunal has found that the photograph does not disclose that the Jeep was having four head lights. However, this is a case of two fast going vehicles dashing each other from Ihe opposite direction. The claimant's evidence is to the effect that the driver of the Jeep was not negligent. It is not possible to draw a line of distinction between the two fast going vehicles.
9. In the case of Amthiben Mogan Lal v. Supdt. Geo-physicisl, ONGC and others, reported in 1976 (17) Gujarat Law Reporter, 910 it has been observed by the D.B. of the High Court as under :-
"When a man drives a motor car along the road, lie is bound to anticipate that there may be people or animals or things at any moment, and he is bound to go not faster lhan will permit; of his stopping or defelecting his course at any time to avoid anything he sees after he has seen it. If there is any difficulty in the way of his seeing as for example, a fog, he must go sower in consequence. Even in such a collision between two fast moving vehicles there would be clearly a dilemma situation, either the driver did not keep a sufficient look out or that if he did keep a good look out, possibly he was going too fast for the look out to be kepi so as to avoid such collision. It was a night journey ana specially when the jeep driver had seen such a large truck coming almost in the middle of the road with full headlights on, he could have if he was on the proper look out, as deposed by Mr. Prajapati, taken ordinary precaution to swerve his vehicle to the left by not persisting in his driving in the tar road for avoiding collision with this on coming truck. Therefore, on the aforesaid evidence there can be no other conclusion than the one that cither the jeep driver was not keeping sufficient look out or that he was going too fast for the look out to be kept so as to avoid any such collision, and in either case, he was also negligent alongwilh the offending truck driver. No doubt in such cases the offending truck driver had greater duty and the larger responsibility because of the larger size of his vehicle and the higher power of his engine compared to the small jeep vehicle with small horse power of its engine.
However, in the present case, we are not required to go into the question of negligence by the driver of jeep or the percentage thereof because whatever may be the consequence, the bus driver cannot be said to be not negligent. The compensation can be recovered by claimants from any of the tort teasers.
10. In view of the above reasons, we find that the Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in holding that the appellants are liable to pay the compensation.
11. The next point argued by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the compensation which has been awarded is on a higher side. It has been observed by the Tribunal that the deceased and injured all belonged to extended family and the menfolk of the extended family. Gulzar Singh and Pritam Singh (deceased) were small building contractors. Gurcharan Singh and Avtar Singh were Ministry masons, Jaswant Singh (deceased) was a shop keeper, Gurdeep Singh (deceased) was a Truck owner and Rajwant Kaur and Harnam Kaur (deceased) were housewives. Kaka and Guddi were minor children. Gagandeep Kaur and Amandeep Singh were also minor while Sarabjit Singh was a young adult. The Tribunal also found that though each of them had made high claim for compensation, none of them had placed on record any documentary evidence to prove the exact income of the deceased. The statements of accounts, income tax re-
turns or some other reliable document, which could have been corroborative evidence to the oral evidence adduced by the claimant- respondents is not on record. The Tribunal has, therefore, not accepted the bare statement of the witnesses regarding income. In such cases, the loss of income has to be assessed from a reasonable appeciation of evidence that is before the Tribunal because when corroborative evidence is not produced, high figure of alleged income cannot be accepted. At the same time, it cannot be accepted that they that were not earning any thing.
12. Deceased Gulzar Singh and Rajwant Kaur were husband and wife. So far as their case (MAC No. 105-T and 106-T of 1996) are concerned, the claimants are the children. Gulzar Singh's income has been assessed at Rs. 3000/- permonth, 1/3rd of the amount has been deducted as his own expenses. Rajwant Kaur's income is assessed at Rs. 1500/- and it has been held by the Tribunal that she was doing tailoring work. The multiplier of 15 years has been adopted in both these cases. Rs. 5000/- each has been awarded for transporting dead bodies and last rites etc.
13. In MAC No. 107-T deceased in Pritam Singh. His income is also found to be Rs. 3000/- and 1/3rd has been deducted. The submission regarding higher amount of income has not been accepted. Multiplier of 10 years has been adopted.
14. Similarly in MAC No. 108-T, income of Gurcha-ran Singh (deceased) is held to be Rs. 3000/- and multiplier of 8 years has been adopted.
15. Gagandeep Kaur and Amandeep Singh were injured in the accident. Their claim petitions are MAC No. 110-Tand 111-T. The witness examined by Gagandeep Kaur is her uncle Gurbachan Singh. AW-4. He has testified regarding her injuries and stated that she had received injuries on her neck, head and a stiches were applied on her head and face. She was treated at Civil Hospital, Ambala and referred to PGI Chandigarh where she remained for 4/5 days. The case history prepared at the time of treatment at PGI has been relied as corroborated evidence. It is also considered by the Tribunal that she must have suffered pain on account of the injuries and her guardian must have also spent some money on medicines and trans-portat ion. It may be noted that in such emergent cases, money is required to be spent for medicine, transportation etc. and at that time, what is important is not to save money but to save the person. Persons are required to sit in the hospital. On many times, persons sit in shifts and they have to incur for coming and going to the hospital. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 0.25 lacs (Rs. 25,000/-) to the injured claimant, which cannot be said to be on higher side.
16. Similarly, Amandeep Singh had received injuries on his jaw and bolh bones of right leg were fractured, Stiches were also applied on his neck and head. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala and then to PGI Chandigarh for treatment. He remained admitted for 4/5 days. He has also been awarded Rs. 0.25 lacs (Rs.
25,000/-). This amount is also not on higher side in view of the injuries sustained by him and the reasons mentioned in the case of Gagandeep Kaur supra.
17. The third injured is Sarabjit Singh. His claim petition is MAC M2-T of 1996. He had stated that he became unconscious after the accident and later learnt that he was treated at Civil Hospital Ambala and then at PGI. He remained admitted in PGI for seven days. Plaster was applied on his left forearm and his jaw was also fractured which was tied up with a wire. Further as aresult of the accident, he was unable to see from his left eye. He has stated that he was earning Rs. 6000/-per month by way of his working as a Carpenter and now he is not able to work.
18. He has examined Balwan Singh (AW-10) Op-thalmic Assistant, who testified that he was contact lens specialist and worked with Dr. Rajiv Sood at Kaithal. He was examined by Dr. Sood and it was found that there was no vision and no projection of light and he has suffered total opticatrophu because of damage to the optic nerve. The doctor's slip regarding the same is Ex. A/1 which shows that there was no perception of projection of light and the condition was incurable. There is also on record Ex. A21, the Patient ticket of PGI. Tn that there is provisional diagnosis of optic nerve trauma. Ex. A/22 is the certificate regarding his orthopaedic injury in which it was mentioned that he had suffered fracture of mandible and fracture of both bones of left arm. The Tribunal has awarded the amount awardable to him as under ;-
"a) Loss of vision of left eye.
Rs. 1,00,000.00
b) Pain & Suffering Rs. 10,000.00
c) Medical treatment and other expenses including bills of Rs. 88500 Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rs. 1,25,000.00
19. We find that the Tribunal cannot be said to have given an exorbitant amount. Further grounds such as loss of income etc. are not considered and we do not find that the award is at all on the higher side.
20. MAC No. 113-T is regarding deceased Avtar Singh who died after 5 days in the PGI, Chandigarh. His income is also assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month and multiplier of 15 years has been applied. The award cannot be said to be on higher side.
21. M.A.C.No. 114-T is regarding the death of Gur-deep Singh in the accident. His income is assessed at Rs. 30007- per month. However, his contribution to the family is held to be Rs. 1000/-. Multiplier of 12 years has been rightly applied by the Tribunal and therefore, the award cannot be said to be exorbitant regarding this claim also.
22. Similarly, income of Jaswant Singh (deceased) has been assessed at Rs. 3000/- per month. Multiplier of 15 years has been adopted. His claim petition is MAC No. 115-T.
23. Regarding minor Kaka Singh, the claim petition is MAC No. H6-Tofl996. No fault liability amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been considered in view of the fact that the deceased was a minor. Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded for other expenses. A person who is a minor must not be earning during his minority but with the increase in age he starts helping the family. Further he will earn in future and therefore he cannot be said to be a totally useless person and it will be harsh and imprudent to hold that there is no monetary loss. Therefore, the award in this case is also not on the higher side.
24. Similar is the case regarding deceased Guddi for whom MAC No. 117-T has been filed.
In view of the above reasons, we do not find that the awards of the Claims Tribunal deserves to be set-aside or modified.
These appeals are without merit and are, therefore, dismissed.
25. Appeals dismissed.