Jaspal Bajwa and Others vs Dalbir Singh and Others

J.M. Tandon, J.—This order will dispose of F.A.O. No. 367 of 1977 and cross-objection No. 5/C-II of 1978 in F.A.O. No. 367 of 1977 which are directed against the same award of the Tribunal.

On February 27, 1972, Mahabir Singh Bajwa deceased was going from the side of Jullundur to Batala on a scooter. When he reached near village Ramidi, truck No. HRA-8617 came from the opposite side. The scooter which was being driven by the deceased on the left side of the road was hit by the truck. The deceased received injuries which resulted in his death afterwards in the hospital. The deceased was 44 years old at the time of his death. He was employed as an instructor in Civil Defence and his total salary was Rs. 469.60. Jaspal Bajwa, widow of the deceased and her two minor children aged 6 years and 5 years respectively filed an application for compensation against Balbir Singh, driver of the truck, Messrs New Suraj Transport Company, the owner of the truck and Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company with whom the truck was insured. The Tribunal vide award dated August 18, 1977, held that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of Balbir Singh as also on account of the negligence of the deceased. Jaspal Bajwa and her minor children were consequently allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- . It is this award that Jaspal Bajwa and her two children have filed F.A.O. No. 367 of 1977. The cross-objection No. 5/C-II of 1978 has been filed by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company against the same award. The claim of the Appellants is that the compensation payable to them may be enhanced where as the insurance company has prayed that the award of the Tribunal be set aside and the claim petition of Jaspal Bajwa and others be dismissed.

The Learned Counsel for Jaspal Bajwa and her children has argued that the Tribunal has wrongly found that the deceased was also guilty of contributory negligence. The contention is without merit. The deceased was going from the side of Jullundur to Batala on a scooter whereas truck No. HRA 8617 came from the opposide direction near village Ramidi. There, was no other traffic on the road at the time of the accident. The evidence led by the claimant is that the truck was being driven in the middle of the road whereas the scooter was being driven on the left side of the road. The deceased could very well see the truck coming from the opposite side. He or his scooter was not run over by the truck. The scooter and the truck hit each other with the result that the deceased along with the scooter fell down and suffered injuries. It is obvious that the deceased could have very easily avoided the impact with the truck by taking the scooter to his further left. He was hit by the truck because he did not so. Under these circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased himself was negligent in driving the scooter at the time of the accident appears to be correct.

The Learned Counsel for the insurance company has argued that the deceased was 44 years of age at the time of his death. He was getting about Rs. 470/- per month. The Tribunal has assessed his monthly contribution to his family at Rs. 250/- and has applied 15 as multiplier. The multiplier applied is excessive and should be suitably reduced. The deceased had two children aged 6 years and 5 years at the time of his death. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, the multiplier applied cannot be held to be so excessive to merit interference.

No other point has been argued.

In the result F.A.O. No. 367 of 1977 and Cross-Objection No. 5/C-II of 1978 fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.