Bishan Dial and another vs Joginder Singh and another

Rajendera Nath Mittal, J.—This is an appeal by the claimants against the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated April I, 1971, whereby their claim application for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- has been dismissed.

Briefly the case of the claimants is that Lal Bahadur was going on his cycle after coming out from the Assembly Building when he was struck by the bus belonging to Union Territory, Chandigarh, Lal Bahadur fell down and received serious injuries on account of which he later on died. The claimants who are father and sister of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims, Tribunal on the ground that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by Joginder Smgh driver. They claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. The claim was contested by respondent No. 2 which inter alia pleaded that the bus was being driven by the driver at a low speed, that the deceased suddenly emerged from behind a standing bus and struck against the offending bus. It is further pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal :

Whether the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased or that of the Bus driver ?

To what amount of compensation are the claimant entitled and from whom ?

Relief.

It held that the claimants had failed to prove that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. On the question of compensation, it came to the conclusion that Rs. 5,000/- would be an adequate amount. In view of the finding on issue No. 1, it dismissed the claim petition. The claimants have come up in appeal to this Court.

The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Joginder Singh driver. He argued that the Tribunal erred in disbelieving the statements of Tilak Ram P.W. 4 and Milkhi Ram P.W. 5.

I have heard the learned counsel at a considerable length and given a deep thought to the arguments. After going through the evidence of the said two witnesses, I am of the view that the conclusion of the Tribunal that they were not present at the spot when the accident took place is correct. Both the witnesses knew the deceased but none of them accompanied the deceased to the hospital. If they were present at the time of accident at least one of them mast have accompanied the deceased. There are various other discrepancies in their statements which have been pointed out by the Tribunal. It will, therefore, not be safe to rely on their statements.

The Tribunal rejected the statements of Piara Singh R.W. 1 and Joginder Singh R.W 2. I have gone through their statements and am of the opinion that they are equally unreliable. Both the witnesses gave different versions than the one given in the written statements. The learned Tribunal has rejected their statements and in my view rightly.

Normally the appeal merits dismissal in view of the fact that the appellants'' evidence is not worthy of any credence. In this case however, there are admissions of the respondents, the photographs and other circumstances on the basis of which it can safely be concluded, that the driver of the Bus was negligent. Respondent No. 2 in the written statement pleaded that the offending bus was going to High Court after leaving the passengers at New Secretariat. Another bus was also standing on the left side of the offending bus. The offending bus, it is admitted, covered some distance when the accused with a cycle dashed in the middle of the bus and fell on the ground. The statement of the driver was that the bus was not in motion when the cycle struck against it. On account of the accident, his vertebra fractured and spinal cord injured. The above injuries are of serious nature and could not be received by him if he had not struck against the moving bus. It appears that the bus had attained good speed and while it was passing near the standing bus, the deceased came out from the front side of the standing bus. Joginder Singh driver could not stop the bus as it had attained a good speed and consequently the bus hit the deceased. The photographs Ex. P 3/1 to P 3/5 also support me in the above view. The accident could have been avoided in case the driver of the bus would have been at a slow speed. On the other hand, the deceased also did not take adequate precaution while he was passing in front of the standing bus. It was his duty not to proceed beyond the bus unless he was satisfied that no vehicle was coming from his right hand. In my view the deceased and the driver of the bus were equally negligent in driving the cycle and the bus respectively.

The question now arises as to what compensation the appellant are entitled. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the amount of compensation was not determined correct by the Tribunal. It cannot be disputed that the deceased was drawing Rs. 145/- per mensem and was 25 years of age. His father and sister, the claimants are 45 and 16 years of age respectively. The deceased was the only son of his father and was unmarried. In the circumstances, he must be contributing at least an amount of Rs. 75/- per mensem towards the expenses of his father and sister. At present the banks are paying 10 per cent interest on fixed deposits for a long period. An amount of Rs. 9.000/- deposited in fixed deposit can provide an income of Rs. 75/- per mensem to the father and the sister of the deceased. Bishan Dial has also been deprived of love and affection of his only son. Considering the status of the family I grant an amount of Rs. 2,000/- on account of loss of love and affection. Thus total loss of the appellants is to the tune of Rs. 11,000/-.

I have already held above that the deceased contributed to the accident to the extent of 50 per cent. In the circumstances, the appellants are entitled to half of the compensation which comes to Rs. 5,500/-.

For the reasons recorded above, I partly accept the appeal and grant Rs. 5,500/- compensation to the appellants with proportionate costs. Counsel fee Rs. 100/-.