Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maya Devi And Ors. vs Sohan Singh And Ors. on 19 May, 1989
Equivalent citations: II(1989)ACC360
JUDGMENT S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The challenge in appeal here is to the denial of compensation to the widow and children of Parkash Chand, deceased, who was killed in an accident with the truck PNC-2947. This happended at about 7-30 A.M. on January 22,1979 in front of Guru Dashmesh Engineers & Traders Factory, Bhatinda on the Bhatinda-Mansa Road. The finding of the Tribunal being that the accident had not been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck-driver.
2. According to the claimants, Parkash Chand, Deceased, accompanied by his brother Des Raj had gone to Guru Dashmesh Engineers & Traders Factory to supply milk. Having done so, just as he entered the main road, he was run over by the truck PNC 2947 which came there at a very fast speed from the side of Mansa.
3. The reply of the respondent, truck-driver and owner as given in their return was a mere denial of the accident. No. Counter-version of how it occurred was put-forth.
4. The case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of AW 2, Des Raj the brother of the Deceased Parkash Chand, who deposed that he was with him when the accident occurred. According to him, Parkash Chand was still on the kacha portion of the road on the side of the factory where he had supplied milk when the truck came on to the wrong side of the road and hit into the deceased and killed him. He further went on to depose that when after the truck had collided against the cycle of Parkash Chand, he signalled to the truck-driver to stop the truck. The truck-driver stopped it at a distance of 25 karams and he then requested the truck-driver to carry Parkash Chand in his truck to the hospital telling him that his truck had caused injuries to Parkash Chand. The truck-driver disclosed his name to be Sohan Singh and agreed to do so, but instead sped away from there.
5. Soon thereafter, Chand Singh, another milk vendor happended to reach there. Leaving this Chand Singh to guard the dead body, he went to his house and after informing his family members about the accident, went to Police Station Kotwali, where he lodged the report Exhibit A/3 on the basis of which a case under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code was registered against the truck-driver, Sohan Singh.
6. Next to note is the testimony of AW 3-A.S.I. Gulzar Singh who deposed to the recording of the first information report Exhibit AW 3/A on the statement of Des Raj This witness further stated that Sohan Singh was later convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code in respect of this accident.
7. The respondents on their part examined only the truck driver RW 5 Sohan Singh who denied that any accident had occurred with this truck and stated that he had been falsely implicated. According to him, there was another truck following him from Sunam to Bhatinda implying thereby that the accident could have been caused by this other truck. He admitted in cross-examination, however, that he had been convicted and sentenced in respect of this accident for an offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, and the appeal against this conviction had also been dismissed though a revision was pending in the High Court.
8. Next, there is the statement of RW 6, Parkash Chand, the owner of the truck, who deposed that Sohan Singh, truck-driver told him that he had been falsely implicated in this case. He further admitted that he had not got this truck insured.
9. Finally to note is the testimony of RW 4 Naurata Ram, Octroi Clerk, who deposed that he had charged octroi from the truck PNC-2947 and also from another truck-driver on the same day and time. This witness having been examined to support the plea that the accident could have been caused by this other truck following the offending truck PNC 2947.
Turning now to an appreciation and evaluation of the evidence on record, it will be seen that AW 2 Des Raj was no doubt the brother of the deceased Parkash Chand, but in the circumstances, his presence with him, at the time of the accident, cannot, but be taken to be most natural and probable keeping in view the fact that both of them were in the same trade, that is, selling milk and they were out to supply milk at that time. Further, a reading of the testimony of this witness would show that he has come-forth with a straight-forward account of the accident and there are no contradictions or improbabilities therein to create any doubt in his veracity. What lends valuable corroboration is the circumstance that immediately after the accident, he lodged a report with the police, where he mentioned therein the particulars of the truck that had caused the accident.
10. In dealing with the testimony of AW 2 Des Raj, what seems to have weighed with the Tribunal was that the claimants had not examined the person from the factory, who is said to have come to the spot after the accident. Admittedly, this other person had not seen the accident. The non- examination of such a person does not warrant any adverse inference with regard to the credibility of this witness.
11. Coming to the manner in which the accidental occurred, there is the clear testimony of Des Raj that the truck had come on to the wrong' side of the road and then the accident occurred. It is pertinent to note that no suggestion was made that the accident occurred when the deceased was trying to cross the road.
12. The Tribunal also expressed the view that the offending truck was loaded with rice husk and the deceased could not, therefore, have sustained the injuries found on his person by AW 4 Dr. S.P. Kalra by being struck by it. This is a wholly unwarranted assumption as no suggestion was ever made to Des Raj that the truck was loaded with the rice husk nor was any such mention made in the return.
13. As mentioned earlier, the respondents have not come-forth with any counter-version of the accident and as for the claimants, valuable corroboration is provided not only by the prompt lodging of the first information report, but also by the subsequent conviction of the truck- driver, for this accident.
14. Taking an over all view, therefore, of the totality of the circumstances, in the light of the evidence on record, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the accident had been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck-driver. The finding of the Tribunal to the contrary is accordingly hereby reversed.
15. Turning now to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, the evidence on record shows that Parkash Chand deceased was only about 40 years of age at the time of his death; November 1, 1938 being his date of birth. It was the testimony of AW 5 Maya Devi, his 40 years old widow that she and their six children four daughters and two sons were all dependent upon the deceased. The deceased, she deposed, was a milk seller and used to provide her over Rs. 1000/- per month for their maintenance. No accounts of this income are, however, forthcoming, but the record does show that the deceased had', from his income first constructed a two room house and later added the front portion and two chobaras. He owned a television set and a radio and what is more, Exhibits A/1 and A/2 show that he had been depositing Rs. 100/- to, Rs. 150/- a month, in the names of his two daughters Such being the circumstances and the situation of the deceased and the claimants, it would be fair and just to assess the dependency at Rs. 750/-per month or Rs. 9000/-per annum. Further, keeping in view the principles Laid down' by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 PLR 1 '16' would clearly be the appropriate multiplier to be applied. So computed, the compensation payable to the claimaints would work out to Rs. 1,44,000/-.
16. The liability for the amount payable must rest wholly upon the truck-driver Sohan Singh and the truck-owner Parkash Chand. The truck not having been insured on the date of the accident, no liability in respect of the amount awarded can be fastened upon the Insurance Company.
17. The claimants are accordingly hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded.
18. The respondent--truck-driver and owner shall be jointly and severally liable for the amount payable.
19. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each shall be paid to Saroj, Parveen and Veena, the daughters of Parkash Chand deceased, who have since got married, while the other children shall receive Rs. 15,000/- each and the balance shall be payable to the widow-Maya Devi. The compensation payable to the minor claimants shall be paid to them in such manner as the Tribunal may deem to be in their best interests.
20. This appeal is accordingly hereby accepted with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.