K.K. Sharma vs Nirmal Singh and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—Eight persons were travelling on a tractor trolley HRX-799. Six out of them, namely, Ram Chander, Surinder Kumar, Ramji Das, Madan Lal, Ram Singh and one other were killed when it met with an accident with one truck HYE-2282 coming from the opposite direction. This happened on November 19, 1981, at about 8 p.m. in the area of police station Sadhaura in district Ambala. The Tribunal held the truck driver to be wholly to blame for the accident and awarded Rs. 40,000 as compensation to the mother, widow and children of Ram Chander, deceased, Rs. 16,000 and Rs. 40,000 respectively to the parents of Surinder Kumar and Ramji Das, deceased, Rs. 87,552 to the widow and children of Madan Lal, deceased and Rs. 90,000 to the widow and children of Ram Singh, deceased.

The finding of negligence recorded against the truck driver warrants no interference in appeal. According to the claimant, the tractor was being driven on its correct side of the road when the bus came from the opposite direction at a very high speed and hit it. It may be mentioned here that this truck was loaded with paddy straw which was bulging far beyond the body of the truck.

The truck driver sought to lay the blame for this accident upon the driver of the tractor by putting forth the version that the tractor had come on to the road from a side road and rammed into the truck. It was said that another truck had just overtaken this truck and a lot of dust had been raised thereby and it was before this dust had cleared that the tractor came and hit the truck.

The case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of A.W. 2, Phool Singh, who was travelling in the ill-fated tractor at the time of the accident. His leg was fractured at that time. According to him, the tractor was being driven at a speed of 10 to 15 Kmph when the truck with paddy straw loaded on it and protruding outside its body, came from the opposite direction at a very high speed and hit the tractor with such force that it was broken into three pieces. The tractor trolley was overturned and the driver of the tractor and five persons, sitting in the tractor trolley, died at the spot. This version finds ample corrobor''ation from the photographs of the scene of the occurrence taken soon after the accident. The only witness examined from the other side was the truck driver, R.W. 1. Nirmal Singh. According to him, no part of the paddy straw was protruding outside the truck. This is belied by the photographs. The photographs would further show that it was the truck that came" on to wrong side of the road and the distance from the place of impact and where it stopped clearly indicates the fast speed at which it must have been travelling''at that time. The damage to the tractor, as revealed in these photographs, is also a clear pointer to the truck driver''s negligence. It has also come in evidence that there was no side road near the place of occurrence. There was thus no occasion for the tractor to have come to this road from any such side road.

Such being the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, no exception can indeed be taken to the finding of negligence recorded against the truck driver which is accordingly hereby affirmed.

As regards the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, the only challenge was with regard to the awards in the case of Madan Lal and Ram Singh deceased.

A reference to the evidence on record would show that Madan Lal was about 30 years of age at the time of his death. According to A.W. 9, Mulkh Raj, time-keeper of the Sugar Mills, Yamuna Nagar, Madan Lal, was employed as a shop clerk in the factory on a salary of Rs. 566.70 per month. Apart from this, he was also entitled to bonus at the rate of 20 per cent on his total annual earnings. It was on this basis that the Tribunal assessed the total annual income of the deceased at Rs. 8,208 and after making an allowance for what the deceased would have spent upon himself, the dependency of the claimants was computed at Rs. 5,472 per annum. No exception can indeed be-taken to this. Keeping in view also the fact that the deceased had, dependent upon him, a young widow and two minor sons, quite rightly the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of " 16 " in awarding Rs. 87,522 as compensation in this case. This amount warrants no reduction in appeal.

As regards Ram Singh, the deceased, the evidence shows that he was a 32 year old farmer who earned his livelihood by cultivating 11 acres of land. He had a tractor which he used to drive himself for the cultivation of this land. Dependent upon him were his mother, widow, a son and a daughter. It is no doubt true that the land of the deceased has now come to the claimants, but they have, at any rate, been denied the value of his labour and supervision in the management and cultivation of this land. Of particular significance here is the fact that the deceased had a tractor which he used for the cultivation of this land. Such being the circumstances of the deceased and the claimants, no exception can indeed be taken to the compensation awarded to the claimants. Here again, the Tribunal rightly took "16" to be the appropriate multiplier.

The only other point raised in this appeal was with regard to the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation beyond Rs. 50,000 in the case of Madan Lal and Ram Singh, the deceased. The record would show that a specific plea was raised regarding the liability of the insurance company being Rs. 50,000. There is also on record the insurance policy showing this to be so. In this situation, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the liability of the insurance company cannot exceed Rs. 50,000 in respect of each particular deceased.

It follows that the driver, owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded to the claimants in all these cases except that in the case of Madan Lal and Ram Singh deceased, the liability of the insurance company shall be limited to Rs. 50,000 in each case.

In the result, the appeals filed by the truck owner are hereby dismissed while those of the New India Assurance company are accepted. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.