Kusum Bhardwaj and Others vs Baldev Singh and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—An accident between the car BHS-324 and the truck PJP-3165 coming from opposite directions, resulted in the death of the car-driver-Vikramjit Bhardwaj and three other occupants of the car, namely; S. Kishnan, Amarjit Kaur and Ajit Kaur. The only survivor being Sukhmeat Singh, who sustained serious injuries. This happened on March 11, 1983 at about 6-15 P.M. on the Grand-Trunk Road near Shahbad. Holding that it was the car-driver Vikramjit Bhardwaj who was wholly to blame for the accident the Tribunal declined compensation to his widow and children, but awarded Rs. 4,80,000/- as compensation to the widow and children of S. Kishnan ; Rs. 1,15,200 to the husband and children of Amarjit Kaur, and Rs. 30,000/- to Sukhmeet Singh, the husband of Ajit Kaur and in respect of his own injuries Sukhmeet Singh was awarded Rs. 20,000/- as claimed by him. With the car-driver being held to be at fault, he, the owner of the car, and the insurance company with which it stood insured, were held to be jointly and severally liable for the amounts awarded.

In appeal now the challenge in the first instance was to the finding on the issue of negligence.

The claimants sought to lay the blame for the accident upon the truck-driver by pleading that it was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck that it came and struck against the car and that too in disregard of the traffic rules. No counter-version of the accident was put-forth on behalf of the truck-driver or its owner except the stark plea that the accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the car-driver.

The case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of P.W. 13 Sukhmeet Singh. His injuries in the accident mark him out to be a stamped witness to the occurrence. It was his testimony that the truck came at a very fast speed from the opposite direction and it suddenly came on to its wrong side and hit into the car. As against this, there is the testimony of the truck-driver, R.W. 1-Baldev Singh, who sought to put out a new story, namely, that the accident occurred when the car suddenly tried to over-take a bus going ahead and it thus came and hit into the truck coming from the other side. It is pertinent to note that no such plea had been raised in the written statement.

The crucial point for determination here is the precise point of impact between the car and the truck. Great stress, in this behalf, was laid by Mr. L.M. Suri, appearing for the truck-owner, on the fact that both vehicles were on the correct side of the road after the accident, as would be evident from the photographs A.W. 6/1 to 9. The other side, on the other hand, sought to press in aid the site plan Exhibit A/9 prepared by the investigating officer A.W. 7 ASI Ram Chand soon after the accident, which denotes the place of impact to be on the correct side of the car. In dealing with this aspect of the matter, it is important to note that according to the testimony of the investigating officer, glass was splattered all over the road and this provides clear indication of the car having been pushed back by the truck after the impact. The site plan Exhibit A/9 reveals quite a distance between the place of impact and where the two vehicles eventually stopped. The path of travel of the two vehicles between these points tends to suggest that both the vehicles must have been coming somewhere towards the centre of the road. It is, at any rate, apparent from the evidence on record that neither vehicle took any evasive action to avoid the accident. The version of the truck-driver that the accident occurred when the car was trying to over-take a bus, is clearly an after thought and warrants no credence. The truck being considerably heavier than the car, it would be very much in accord with probabilities that it would drag the car along. The place where the number-plate of the car fell, provides an important pointer to the place of impact. It must be assumed that it fell near or around the place where the accident occurred.

The significant aspect of the matter here is that the accident occurred on a wide straight road with no other traffic there, which would mean that there was ample time and opportunity for the drivers of the two vehicles to see each other and to take appropriate steps to avoid danger to themselves or to each other. It appears, neither exercised this imperative precaution.

Considering all the circumstances of the case, in the light of what has come on record, there can be no escape from the conclusion that this accident occurred due to the negligence of both the car and the truck-drivers and thus both deserve to be held to be equally to blame for it. The finding, on the issue of negligence must thus be modified accordingly.

Next to consider is the claim for compensation put-forth on behalf of the widow and the two sons of the car-driver-Vikramjit Bhardwaj, deceased. The evidence here consists of the testimony of P.W. 14-Kusum Bhardwaj, the widow of the deceased, who deposed that her husband was about 47 years of age at the time of his death. He was proprietor of M/s. V. Bhardwaj Associates at Delhi and his earnings were over Rs. 4,000/- per month. She further stated that before September 1981, he had been working as Sales Executive with M/s. Jullundur Motor Agencies, Delhi at a salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month and was also getting a car allowance of Rs. 500/- per month. In support, she placed on record, Income Tax Orders Exhibit P.W. 14/A and P.W. 14/B for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81.

Vikramjit Bhardwaj died leaving behind not only his widow Kusum Bhardwaj who was 41 years of age, but also two sons aged 16 and 15 years respectively. It has come in evidence that they were all dependent upon the deceased.

The other evidence to consider with regard to the claim for compensation arising from the death of Vikram Jit Bhardwaj is the statement of P.W. 12, H.S. Soni, Chartered Accountant, who proved Exhibit P.W.12/A, the statement of accounts, in respect of M/s V. Bhardwaj Associates. According to this statement, the net profit of this firm was shown to be Rs. 35,890/- for the year 1981-82. In dealing with the evidence led with regard to the income of Vikram Jit Bhardwaj, it deserves note that what the Chartered Accountant, P.W. 12 H.S. Soni, produced on record, was a statement of accounts prepared after the death of the deceased. As for the Income Tax Orders, those produced were of the period prior to 1981. In other words, the orders nearest to the date of death are not forthcomings and for this counsel for the claimant had no explanation. Be that as it may, the total income of the deceased as revealed by the Income Tax Orders P.W. 14-A and P.W. 14-B show that it was Rs. 27,000/- to Rs. 29,000/- per annum. If this is relied upon, it would mean that the income of the deceased was a little over Rs. 2,000/- per month. Applying here the principle laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 PLR-1, in so far as they are applicable here, ''16'' would undoubtedly be the appropriare multiplier to be applied and the dependency deserves to be assessed at Rs. 20,000/- per annum, So computed, compensation payable to the claimants would work out to Rs. 3,20,000/-, which has to be scaled down to Rs. 1,60,000/- in view of the contributory negligence of the deceased. This amount is accordingly ordered to be paid to the claimants 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. 30,000/- each shall be paid to the 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.

As regards the compensation awarded to the other claimants, no reduction is indeed called for. In the case of S. Kishnan, evidence shows that he was only 43 years of age at the time of his death. He died leaving behind his 30 years old widow and two minor daughters. S. Kishnan was working as Regional Manager with M/s India Motor Parts and Accessories (P) Limited, New Delhi at a salary of Rs. 4,225/- per month. Besides this, he was also entitled to a free car and other perks. Considering his situation and that of the claimants, the Tribunal rightly applied a multiplier of ''16'' in his case and assessed the dependency at Rs. 2,500/- per month. No exception can thus be taken to the award of Rs. 4,80,000/- as compensation, in this case.

Turning now to the case of Amarjit Kaur, deceased, evidence shows that she was employed as a Teacher at a salary of Rs. 900/- per month. It is true that though she was 48 years of age, her husband was about 58 years old at the time of her death. ''16'' in this case was clearly not the appropriate multiplier to be applied, but considering the fact that the claimant suffered not only a financial loss as represented by the salary of the deceased, but also the loss of services of the house wife, the amount awarded calls for no interference in appeal.

In case of Ajit Kaur, deceased, the compensation awarded to her husband was only Rs. 30,000/- for loss of services of the housewife. This figure, if anything, should have been higher, considering the amounts awarded on this account in other cases. Similarly, counsel failed to show any justification for reduction in the amount awarded to Sukhmeet Singh in respect of the injuries suffered by him.

In the result, it must be held that car-driver, owner and insurance company on one hand and the truck-driver, owner and insurance company on the other, are jointly and severally liable for payment of the compensation awarded to the claimants (except in the case of Kusum Bhardwaj), it is, however, clarified that it shall be open to the claimants to recover the whole or any part of the compensation awarded from either or all of them. The parties from whom the recovery is made shall, however, be entitled to a ratable contribution inter se if the amount recovered from them, by the claimants, is in excess of their share of the liability. In other words, the car-driver, owner and Insurance Company on the one hand and the truck-driver, owner and insurance company on the other, shall be liable for the compensation awarded to the extent of only one-half each. As regards the liability in respect of the amount awarded to the claimants, in the appeal filed by Kusum Bhardwaj and others, this shall be wholly that of the truck-driver, owner and insurance company with which it was insured.

The appeals are disposed of accordingly. The claimants shall, however, be entitled to their costs in these appeals against all the respondents, except State Bank of India. Counsel fee Rt. 500/- (One set only).