Basant Rani and Another vs Ran Singh and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—Smt. Basant Rani and her minor daughter had filed a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation on account of death of Suresh Kumar, husband of the claimant No. 1 who died in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Ran Singh, driver of Bus No. DEP-3737. The Bus was owned by respondent No. 2, Krishan Bus Service, Delhi-Hisar Transport Co. (P) Ltd. and was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak vide its award dated 20.2.1985 had dismissed the claim petition by holding that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Bus. However, the Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- per month and after deducting 1/4 from the income of the deceased as his personal expenses, assessed the dependency of the claimants on the deceased at Rs. 750/- i.e. Rs. 9,000/- per annum. By applying a multiplier of 16, the claimants were held entitled to Rs. 1,44,000/-as compensation on account of death of Suresh Kumar. The liability to pay compensation was fastened on the Insurance Company. However, no compensation was paid to the claimants as the Tribunal had returned a finding that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Bus No. DEP-3737.

Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants have filed the present appeal. The award has been assailed on many counts.

During the pendency of appeal, the claimants had also filed an application u/s 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of ''no fault liability'' alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The application was allowed with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants with 12% interest from the date of filing of the application till its realisation.

While assailing the award of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the version of the claimants with regard to the occurrence was rejected by the Tribunal without cogent reasons, whereas the claimants were able to prove that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus. Learned counsel further contends that the dependency of the claimants on the deceased has not been properly worked out.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have pleaded that there is no infirmity in the award of the Tribunal. As such, no interference in the well reasoned award is called for.

In order to come to the conclusion, the Court has scanned the evidence brought on record.

The case of the appellants is that Suresh Kumar was riding a motor cycle on 29.12.1982, which was being driven by another person. When the motor cycle reached near the bus stop of village Bhau Jamalpur, a bus bearing registration No. DEP 3737, which was being driven by Ran Singh in rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road without honking the horn, struck against the motor cycle with the result that Suresh Kumar fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries. He was removed to the hospital in an injured condition, where he remained under treatment upto 11.1.1983 and died subsequently.

The claim petition was contested by the owner, driver and the Insurance Company. The respondents denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus. It was pleaded that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle. The deceased and two other persons who were riding the motor cycle were in drunken condition. On seeing the manner in which motor cycle was being driven, the driver of the bus stopped the bus at the extreme left hand side of the road. The motor cycle driver could not control the motor cycle and struck against the bus. The respondents further pleaded that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation.

The material issue before the Tribunal was whether Suresh Kumar Batra died as a result of rash or negligent driving of bus No. DEP 3737 driven by respondent No. 1. The claimants in order to prove their case had produced as many as eight witnesses. In this case, occular version was given by Raj Singh and Umed Singh, who appeared as PW-6 and PW-7 respectively.

However, the Tribunal did not accept the testimony of these witnesses holding that they had given exaggerated version.

After perusing the paper book and hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel, it is observed that the death of the deceased-Suresh Kumar is not in dispute. The only question which has come up for consideration is with regard to the manner in which accident took place.

It has come in the statement of Ran Singh, Driver of Bus No. DEP 3737 that on the fateful day, he has driving the bus when the bus reached near village Bhau, at a distance of about 4 miles from Rohtak, three persons were seen coming on a motor cycle from opposite side. The motor cycle was being driven in a zig-zag manner. On seeing the motor cycle in that condition, he stopped the bus on this left hand side of the road. The motor cycle struck against the bus, As a result all the three occupants of the motor cycle fell down. He and other passengers got down from the bus. He saw one of the three occupants of the motor cycle lying on the road in an injured condition. He had removed the injured to the M.C.H. Rohtak in the bus.

Umed Singh PW-7, who is son of Randhir Singh has deposed that he was present on the roadside near his fields. He saw a bus which was being driven on the wrong side without honking the horn. A motor cycle was also coming from the opposite side. The bus struck against the motor cycle as a result Suresh Kumar who was riding the motor cycle fell down and sustained injuries in the accident. The bus was forced to stop and it was driven back to Rohtak carrying the injured Suresh. He further deposed that Raj Singh, P.W. 6, has also accompanied the injured from the spot in the bus. In cross-examination he has stated that the road was about 7-8 yards wide at the place of occurrence.

To the similar effect is the statement of Raj Singh, P.W. 6.

All these witnesses were cross-examined at length but the respondents were not able to shake their credibility. The presence of Umed Singh P.W. 7 and Raj Singh P.W. 6 has been duly proved. From the site plan Exhibit P.4, it is clear that Raj Singh P.W. 6 was standing near the Kotha, Mark ''C'' as shown in the site plan. This Kotha is on the agricultural land of Randhir Singh father of Umed Singh P.W.7.

Some scratches were found on the right side of the bus and there was a dent on the bumper of the bus. This dent could have been caused only when some part of the bus had struck against the motor cycle. Exhibit P.3 which is report prepared by the motor mechanic fully corroborates the occular version.

In view of the above discussion, the conclusion is that drivers of both the vehicles were negligent. Their vehicles were not in their full control. Had they taken full precaution, the accident would have been averted. In this view of the matter, both the drivers are held liable for causing the accident. The finding of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, is modified accordingly.

In order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants had produced Basant Lal, P.W. 8 who had stated Suresh Kumar was running a dairy and he might be earning Rs. 2,500/- per month. Paras Ram P.W. 5 also stated that Suresh Kumar was cattle dealer but the Tribunal had rejected their testimony holding that no person has come forward to explain that he had either purchased or sold the buffaloes.

It has come in the evidence of Basant Lal, P.W. 8 that Suresh Kumar was running a dairy and was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month. However, the Tribunal had calculated the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- per month. This Court is of the view that the income of the deceased must not be less than Rs. 1,500/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd at his personal expenses, the dependency of the claimants on the deceased comes to Rs. 1,000/-. The annual dependency works out to Rs. 12,000/-and by applying a multiplier of 16 the compensation amount comes to Rs. 1,92,000/-. Since it is a case of contributory negligence the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 96,000/- as compensation with 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Compensation is to be shared as under :-

Basant Rani widow; Rs. 50,000/-.

Meenu, minor daughter; Rs. 46,000/-.

The share of the minor shall be deposited in a fixed deposit in a nationalised Bank and shall be payable to her on attaining majority.

The appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above. No costs.