Krishan Lal and Another vs Shakuntla Devi and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The matter here concerns the claim for compensation put forth by the widow and children of Zile Singh deceased, who was run over and killed by a truck. The accident occurred at about 11.15 a.m. on February 23, 1983 on the Panipat-Gohana

Road. Zile Singh deceased was proceeding towards the Israna area on his motor cycle when a truck came from behind and knocked down the motor cycle and ran over and killed Zile Singh. According to the claimants, the offending truck was HYC 6447.

The Respondents, that is, Krishan Lal, the owner of the truck, Raj Kumar its driver as also the insurance company with which it had been insured, all denied that any accident had been caused by the said truck, that is, HYC 6447.

The Tribunal, after taking into account the evidence brought on record, came to the finding that the accident had indeed been caused by the truck HYC 6447 and proceeded thereafter to award a sum of Rs. 89,280/ - as compensation to the widow and two minor sons of Zile Singh deceased. This award has now been challenged both by the driver and owner of the truck as also by the claimants who have filed cross-objections seeking enhanced compensation.

The case of the claimants with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred as also the identity of the offending truck is founded upon the testimony of PW 3, Jagjit Singh, the Land Evaluation Officer of the Land Mortgage Bank, Panipat. This witness deposed that on February 23, 1983, he and Zile Singh were proceeding towards Israna on their respective motor cycles when the truck HYC 6447 came from behind at a very fast speed. The truck, he stated, was being driven rashly and negligently and after overtaking his motor cycle, it went and hit into the motor cycle of Zile Singh. After covering a distance of 50 to 60 yards, thereafter the truck stopped and the driver alighted from the truck and gave his name as Raj Kumar and he also furnished his address. He then started the truck and went away. Zile Singh died at the spot on account of this accident. He then went towards police station, Israna but met the police at the bus stand of Israna where he made his statement Exh. PE on the basis of which the first information report was recorded.

Next to note is the testimony of PW 5, A.S.I. Attar Singh, who deposed to the recording of the statement of Jagjit Singh Exh. PE on the basis of which the first information report Exh. PB was recorded. He further stated that he then went to the spot where he prepared the inquest report on the dead body of the deceased. As regards the truck HYC 6447, it was his testimony that he took it into possession on February 25, 1983 and on the same day he also arrested its driver, Raj Kumar, Respondent. In this behalf, he also stated in cross-examination that on the day of the incident, that is, February 23, 1983, he had gone to the truck union in search of the truck and Raj Kumar.

The Respondents, on their part, in an effort to show that the truck HYC 6447 had not caused the accident in question, examined RW 1 M.S. Vij, of the National Fertilizer Corporation, Panipat, who deposed that on February 23, 1983 this truck had entered their premises at 9 a.m. and left at 12.30 p.m. It had come there unloaded and had left loaded with urea. Further, he deposed that entries of the exit of the vehicles from their premises are made in the regular course of official business under his supervision.

Next, there is the testimony of the truck driver RW 2, Raj Kumar, who deposed that on February 23, 1983 he loaded urea from the National Fertilizer Corporation, Panipat and had left the factory premises at 12.20 p.m. and entries with regard to the entrance and exit of this truck had been recorded in the factory records. He went on to depose that at about 1.30 p.m. that day when his truck reached near Naulakha School building by the side of the road, he stopped at the signal of thanedar and a constable and he told them that he had come out of the factory premises at 12 or 12.30 p.m. They noted down his name and address and allowed him to go. Later, he was summoned by the Israna Police on February 25, 1983. He made a categoric statement that no accident had been caused by his truck.

A reference to the material on record would show that in the written statement filed by the Respondents, there is no mention of the truck being at the premises of the National Fertilizer Corporation at the time of the accident. Further this plea that it was there at that time was not put to either PW 3, Jagjit Singh or PW 5, A.S.I. Attar Singh.

As regards the testimony of RW 1, M.S. Vij, it is pertinent to note that though he deposed that a record is maintained of the entry and exit time of trucks coming and going from their premises, no such record was produced on record nor indeed did he state that he had made any entries in any record with regard to the entry and exit of this truck.

It will be seen that the time and manner in which the accident had occurred was such that the offending truck could clearly have been seen and its particulars noted by an eyewitness to the occurrence. There is no reason to doubt PW 3, Jagjit Singh in this behalf. What lends significant credibility to his testimony is the fact that the number of the offending truck finds mention in the first information report which was recorded within an hour of the occurrence. What is more, this statement of Jagjit Singh was recorded at 12.30 p.m. on February 23, 1983, whereas the testimony of RW 2, Raj Kumar was that he had been stopped by a thanedar and a constable at 1.30 p.m. This being so, the truck driver and owner cannot be heard to say that the truck had been falsely implicated in this accident.

Such being the state of evidence on record, no exception can be taken to the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused by the truck HYC 6447 on account of its rash and negligent driving.

Turning now to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, it will be seen that Zile Singh deceased was only 35 years of age at the time of his death. He was employed as Land Evaluation Officer with the Land Mortgage Bank, Panipat. His total emoluments, as per the testimony of PW 2, Jaswant Singh of this Bank were over Rs. 1,000/ - per month and in addition he was also being given 20 per cent bonus. In other words, his earnings were to the tune of Rs. 1,200/ - per month. The claimants here are the widow who was 27 years of age at the time of her husband''s death and their two sons, aged 9 and 4. Considering the circumstances of the claimants and the deceased, in keeping with the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 (P and H), the loss to the claimants deserves to be assessed at about Rs. 900/ - per month with a multiplier of ''16''. So computed, the compensation payable to the claimants would work out to somewhat more than Rs. 1,50,000/ -. The claimants have, however, restricted their claim to Rs. 1,50,000/ - and consequently no amount larger than that can be awarded to them.

The compensation payable to the claimants is accordingly hereby enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/ - 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. 25,000/ - each shall be paid to the minor sons 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, the appeal is dismissed while the cross-objections of the claimants are accepted. The claimants shall be entitled to their costs both in the appeal and the cross-objections. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/ - (One set only).