Darshan Kaur alias Darshan and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The controversy in appeal is with regard to the finding of contributory negligence.

Balbir Singh deceased who was on his way to the factory, was killed by the Haryana Roadways bus HRC 6397 coming from the opposite direction when it hit into his cycle. This happened on January 29, 1979 at about 7.45 a.m. on the Delhi-Agra Road. After making an allowance for the contributory negligence of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 36,648/- as compensation to the claimants, they being widow and five minor children, of Balbir Singh deceased.

According to the claimants, Balbir Singh was riding on the left side of the road when the bus coming from the opposite direction suddenly came on to its wrong side and hit into the cycle of the deceased. Ram Narain, the bus driver gave no counter-version of the accident in the return filed by him. His plea was merely one of denial of the case as set up by the claimants. On behalf of the State of Haryana and the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, however, the version put forth was that the bus was on its extreme left side of the road when all of a sudden the deceased came there on a cycle from the opposite direction at a very rash and negligent speed, as a result of which, he could not control his cycle and the cycle then came and hit into the front side of the bus which had in the meanwhile stopped.

The case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of PW 2 Ranjit Singh and PW 3 Jagjit Singh, co-workers of the deceased, who deposed that they were proceeding towards the factory with Balbir Singh when this accident occurred. Both the witnesses were consistent in their testimony that the deceased was on his extreme left side of the road when the bus came and hit into him. A matter of material significance here is the fact that the Delhi-Agra Road is a dual carriageway and the bus was in the wrong lane when the accident occurred. This circumstance, by itself, would place a heavy burden on the bus driver to absolve himself from blame for this accident. The bus driver RW1 Ram Narain did indeed come into the witness box to depose that the accident had occurred due to the deceased not being able to control his cycle as it was coming at a very fast speed, but as pointed out earlier, no such counter-version had been given in the written statement filed by him. Indeed the bus driver did not appear after filing his written statement and was proceeded against ex parte. He was later examined as a witness on behalf of the other Respondents.

A reading of the testimony of RW 1 Ram Narain would show that there is no satisfactory explanation to account for the bus being in the wrong lane. Further, counsel for the Respondents could point to no reason to doubt the testimony of PW 2 Ranjit Singh and PW 3 Jagjit Singh that Balbir Singh deceased was on his correct side of the road when the bus hit into him. In this situation, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the accident occurred wholly due to the negligence of the bus driver. The injuries suffered by the deceased are also consistent with the accident having taken place asdeposed to by these witnesses.

Considering the circumstances of the case, in their totality, in the light of the evidence on record, the finding of contributory negligence cannot indeed be sustained and it must be held that the accident was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.

As regards the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, a reading of the testimony of PW 6 N.C. Bhattacharji, Works Manager of M/s. United Oil Mill Machinery and Spares Pvt. Ltd., Ballabgarh, would show that Balbir Singh deceased was about 39 years of age at the time of his death. He was employed as a welder and his last salary was Rs. 545/- p.m. Besides this, the deceased was also entitled to an annual bonus of 20 per cent. He was stated to be very skilled and efficient in his work.

Balbir Singh deceased died leaving behind his young widow PW 1 Darshan Kaur who was only 30 years of age at that time and their five minor children, all under the age of 10 years. Considered in the context of the circumstances of the claimants and the deceased, in the light of the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 (P &H), there can be no manner of doubt that the appropriate multiplier in this case must be taken to be 16'' and the dependency deserves to be assessed at Rs. 6,000/- per annum. This would work out to Rs. 96,000/- which may be rounded off to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

The compensation payable to the claimants is accordingly hereby enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. one lac only) which they shall be entitled to along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each shall be payable to the five minor children of the deceased and the balance to his widow. The amount payable to the minor claimants shall be paid to them in such manner as the Tribunal may deem to be in their best interest.

The Respondents shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.

In the result, this appeal is accepted with costs throughout. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/-.