Mandip Kaur vs Ram Lal and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The accident here was between a car (HRE 1568) and a motor cycle (CHU 2255), this happened on December 28, 1975 at a crossing in Sector 23. The car had come there from the road entering Sector 23 from the side of Sector 24; while the motor cycle had come from the road on its right. Gurdarshan Singh, the driver of the motor cycle sustained injuries to which he later succumbed in the hospital on December 30, 1975.

The claimant Mandip Kaur, the young widow of Gurdarshan Singh, deceased, was awarded a sum of Rs. 4,950/- as compensation, on the Tribunal holding this to be a case of contributory negligence, which of the deceased, was assessed to be 50 per cent.

In seeking enhancement of compensation, Mr. V.P. Gandhi, counsel for the claimant, in the first instance sought to assail the finding of contributory negligence recorded against Gurdarshan Singh, deceased. The argument being that as the motor cycle had come on to the crossing from the right of the car, it had precedence. In other words, the right of the way over the car and in disregarding it, the car driver rendered himself wholly to blame for this accident. Further, adverting to the testimony of PW 3 Masta Singh and PW 7 Mandip Kaur, it was contended that the car had gone to the wrong side of the road and then caused the accident and on this account too, it was the car driver alone who was at fault.

There is a conflict of evidence whether the, car was proceeding straight through the crossing or had turned to its right. According to the claimant, it was while the car was turning to its right that the accident occurred; whereas according to the car driver, he was passing through the crossing at that time. Either way the car driver must be held to have been negligent as the evidence shows that the accident had occurred at the corner of the crossing. This corner being on the side from which the motor cycle had come. Even if it be taken, therefore, that the car was going straight there was clearly no occasion for it to have not kept to its correct side of the road. According to PW 7 Mandip Kaur, who was sitting on the pillion seat of the motor cycle at the time of the accident, the motor cycle had hardly gone four feet inside the crossing when the two vehicles collided. If the car was indeed to turn to its right, it would be obvious from a reference to the site plan, prepared by the Investigating Officer, PW 6 Assistant Sub-Inspector Pushpinder Singh, that the car had suddenly cut the corner for proceeding towards that side.

The main question which, however, arises in this case is whether or not any part of the blame for the accident can be fastened upon Gurdarshan Singh, deceased. In the case like the present, where the accident occurs at a crossing with one of the vehicles involved therein coming on to it from the right side of the other, both Regulation 6 as also Regulation 7 of the 10th Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act would come into play. A duty is cast upon the driver of a motor vehicle, by the provision of Regulation 6 to slow down while approaching a road intersection and to enter it only in the knowledge that he can do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon. Such persons include the driver of the vehicle himself and any other person who may be travelling in or on his vehicle. Regulation 7 casts a further duty upon such driver that on entering the intersection he must give way to traffic proceeding on the road, if any, designated as main road and in other cases to that approaching the intersection from his right hand side. Seen in this light, both the car driver as also Gurdarshan Singh, deceased, were under an obligation to slow down on approaching the crossing and to proceed to enter it only if they could do so with safety to themselves and others there. There was a further duty upon the car driver to give right of way to the motor cycle as it was coming from its right. I here is no material on record to show that either the car or the motor cycle was slowed down while approaching the crossing or that either driver took the precaution of ensuring that it was safe to enter the crossing before actually proceeding to do so. If Gurdarshan Singh, deceased, had exercised this caution, he would undoubtedly have noticed the car and allowed it to pass before coming on to the crossing himself. Similarly the car driver neither slowed dvown while approaching the crossing nor d id he care to give the right of way to the motor cycle of the deceased. He thus violated not only the requirements of Regulation 6, but also those of Regulation 7; whereas the motor-cyclist had disregarded the requirements of Regulation 6 only.

A similar situation arose in F.A.O. No. 169 of 1977 Piara Singh v. Gian Kaur decided in September, 1983, where it was held that the contributory negligence of the deceased, who had come on the crossing from the right hand side was to be taken to be 33 per cent, while that of the other vehicle which had violated Regulations 6 and 7 of the 10th Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act was 67 per cent. Following this rule in the present case too, it must be held that the contributory negligence of the deceased Gurdarshan Singh must be taken to be 33 per cent. The finding of the Tribunal is consequently modified to this extent.

The next question which arises for consideration is with regard to the amount payable as compensation to Mandip Kaur, the widow of Gurdarshan Singh, deceased. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was employed as Commercial Claims Inspector in the Railways at a salary of Rs. 775/- per month. He was about 31 years of age at the time of his death. His widow Mandip Kaur was only about 24 years old at that time. It has been stated at the bar that she has not remarried. The principles governing the assessment of compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased are those as laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 (P and H), where it was observed that, the compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependants by the death of the deceased and for the purpose of calculating the just compensation annual dependency of the dependants should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose annual earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependants will be the determining factor. This basic figure will then be multiplied by a suitable multiplier. It was further observed that the suitable multiplier shall be determined by taking into consideration number of years of the dependency of the various dependants, the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and the various imponderable factors such as early natural death of the deceased, his becoming incapable of supporting the dependants due to illness or any other natural handicap or calamity, the prospects of the remarriage of the widow, the coming up of age of the dependants and their developing independent sources of income as well as the pecuniary benefits which might accrue to the dependants on account of the death of the person concerned.

The Full Bench authority referred to above came up for consideration before a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice S.S. Sandhawalia and Surinder Singh, J. in Asha Rani v, Union of India 1983 ACJ 52 (P&H), where it was held that the normal multiplier is ''16'' and it can rise to a maximum of ''20'', virtually as the outer limit. It was further observed that the primary purpose of compensation to the dependants is to provide them a consolidated fund of money which would continue to yield annual financial support, which the deceased was providing to his dependants, in other words, the amount which would guarantee the availability of an equivalent annual financial income to them.

Considered in the light of the principles set out in the two authorities referred to above, it would be a reasonable assumption to take the loss here to be at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month with 16 as the multiplier. So computed, the compensation payable to the claimants would work out to Rs. 96,000/- . After making an allowance for the contributory negligence, of the deceased, the claimant Mandip Kaur is hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 64,000/- as compensation which she 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.

This appeal is consequently accepted with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/- .