Pee Key Carriers and Others vs Kaushalya Devi and Others

Gopal Singh, J.—These are two appeals.. They have arisen out of the same award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. F. A. O. No, 62 of 1968 has arisen but of claim application No. 225 of 1964 while claim application No, 224 of 1964 has given rise to F.A.O. No. 63 of 1968.

In the morning of May 6, 1964, Gobind Ram, a petty cloth dealer and Mani Ram, barber were proceeding on a Cycle along G. T. Road from village Ghaunsi towards village Pali. They were run over by truck No. P. N. G. 2627 being driven by Rehmat driver. That truck is owned by Messers Pee Key Carriers, The truck is said to have been coming from the direction opposite to that, in which Gobind Ram and Mani Ram were proceeding on the cycle. It is stated that the truck was being driven at a very high speed, that no horn was blown by the driver and that the, truck struck against Gobind Ram and Mani Ram and knocked them down: Both of them were run over by the truck, and died there and then as a result of the injuries received by them. The case of the claimants is that it is on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck that the deceased west the end of their lives.

On behalf of the dependents of Gobind Ram deceased, claim application No. 225 of 1964 was filed by Mrs. Kaushalya Devi, widow of Gobind Ram deceased, Irider Kumar and Khem Raj, minor sons and Baby, minor daughter of the deceased, Bhupat Ram, father of the deceased and Mrs. Ram Piari, mother of the deceased. That application was made against Messers Pee Key Carriers, Rehmat driver and the Oriental Fire, and General Insurance Company Ltd., as insurer of the truck. In that application, sum of Rs. 30,000/- by way of compensation was claimed against the Respondents.

Claim application No. 224 of 1964 in respect of claim of compensation for the death of Mani Ram was made by his dependents, Mrs. Murti Devi, widow of the deceased, Mohar Pal, Rajindra, Likhi Ram and Om Prakash, four minor sons of the deceased and Suresh Wati, minor daughter of the deceased. That application was also filed against those Respondents, against whom claim application No. 225 of 1964 was filed. The amount of compensation claimed in this application is Rs. 15,000/-.

In the written statements filed on behalf of the Respondents, it is admitted that there took place accident in the morning on May 6, 1964. The truck being owned by Messers Pee Key Carriers was also admitted by them. It was, however, pleaded that the truck was not coming from the direction opposite to the one, in which the cycle, upon which the two deceased were seated, was being driven but it came from the same direction, from which the cycle was coming. They also pleaded that the truck was running at a normal speed of 20 or 25 miles per hour, that horn was blown by the driver of the truck, that on hearing horn, the cyclist got confused and the cycle was driven on the right and that in order to save the cyclist, the driver of the truck tried to swerve on the right of the cyclist but inspite of his attempt to avert the accident, he could not avoid it The Respondents denied that the accident occurred as a result of any negligence on the part of the driver. They refuted the plea of the claimants by averring that it was due to the negligence of the deceased driving the cycle on his wrong side that the unfortunate result of accident followed.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(1) Whether the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the truck in question, in which the victims were fatally injured.

(2) What is the quantum of compensation due, if any, and from whom to whom ?

When these two appeals came up for hearing on February 19, 1971, the counsel for the parties agreed that in order to effectively determine the two issues struck in the case, it is necessary to record the evidence of Dr. P. L. Bhasin, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the two deceased in relation to the injuries described by him in the post-mortem report and the evidence of Raj Kanwar Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector and the photographer to fix precisely the place of occurrence of the accident The case was sent back to the Tribunal for the evidence of these witnesses being recorded. The Tribunal has recorded the evidence and forwarded the same along with its report thereon.

Mr. V.P. Gandhi appearing on behalf of the Appellants has submitted that both the appeals involved common questions of fact and law and have arisen out of the same accident He urged the following common points in both the appeals:

(1) The Tribunal has not found that the truck came from the opposite direction and was being driven on the wrong side of the road.

(2) The finding of the Tribunal that the injuries were caused to the deceased on the anterior aspect of their bodies is not supported by any evidence.

(3) The quantum of compensation determined in both the cases is not justified by the evidence on the record.

Point No. 1.

It is admitted on behalf of the Appellants that the truck did strike against the cycle and it was as a result of striking of the truck against the cycle, on which the two deceased were seated that the deceased sustained the injuries and died there and then on the spot The plea raised on behalf of the Appellants that the truck was not being driven in opposite direction but was coming from the same direction, from which the cycle, on which both the deceased were seated, was proceeding, is without any force. The claimants have led the evidence of Jai Dev A. W. 1, Bharat Singh A. W. 2 and Yad Ram A. W. 3. Jai Dev is lambardar of village Ghaunsi. He is a respect'' able and responsible witness. In course of cross-examination of these three witnesses, the Appellants have failed to make out any case to suggest that the witnesses could not have been present at the time the accident took place and had not seen it. All these three witnesses have unanimously stated that the cycle was coming along the G. T Road from the side of village Ghaunsi and proceeding towards the side of village Pali and that the truck came from opposite direction without blowing any horn, that it was being driven on the right side of the road instead of being driven on the left side of the road. On behalf of the claimants, there has been led evidence of Sunder C. W. 2, Photographer to prove by photo copy C. W. 2/4 that the truck soon after the occurrence was found lying on the extreme right of the road. If tike truck had been driven on the left side of the road as it should have been and the two deceased seated on the cycle were coming from the opposite direction on the left side of the road, the accident could not have occurred. The fact that the truck stopped short and was found parked on the right side of the road soon after the occurrence took place, shows that the driver was driving the truck negligently and did not care to keep the truck while being so driven on the left side of the road. It is on account of that act of negligent driving on the part of the driver that the truck dashed against the cycle and cause of death of the deceased; The point raised has been discussed by the Tribunal under issue No. 1. Thus, there is. no force in the point that the Tribunal has not found that the truck came from the opposite direction. In any case, the point is fully supported by the above referred to evidence of the three eye-witnesses and documentary evidence given by the photographer.

Point No. 2.

The finding of the Tribunal that the injuries suffered by both the deceased are on the anterior aspect of their bodies has been substantiated by the evidence of Dr. P.L. Bhasin C. W. I. He performed the post-mortem examination on the bodies of both the deceased. He gave the opinion that the ribs of both the deceased had been fractured on the right and left side, that their lives, kidneys and lungs were reputed and that the injuries to these vital viscera responsible for the death of the deceased are on the frontal side of the body. The evidence of the doctor admits of no doubt that it is as a result of the injuries having been caused on the anterior aspect of the body and the said visceras underneath these injuries having been damaged that the deceased met the end of their lives. This medical evidence reinforces the statements of Jai Dev, Bharat Singh and Yad Ram A. Ws., who have deposed to the fact of the truck having struck against the cycle while the cycle was facing the truck and both the deceased were seated on the cycle and frontal aspects of the persons of the deceased facing the truck dashing against them. Thus, this finding is fully warranted both by the ocular evidence as well as by the medical opinion given by the doctor.

Point No. 3.

In F.A. Order 62 of 1968, Govind Ram, deceased was a Petty cloth shopkeeper in the village. On the date of accident, he was 30. His income has been assessed by the Tribunal to be Rs. 100/- per mensem. After making allowance of one moiety of his income for the personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal appropriated income of Rs. SO/- per mensem for his widow Mrs. Kausharya Devi, for his two minor sons, one aged 4J and the other aged 2| and an infant daughter seven months old on the date of the accident. Estimating the life span of the deceased to be 60 years, the Tribunal computed the income of the said dependents for 30 years at the rate of Rs. 5 per mensem at a figure of Rs. 18,000. It cannot be legitimately contended that the amount of compensation so computed is in any way excessive.

In F.A. Order 63 of 1968, Mani Ram deceased was a village barber on the date of accident He was 35. He left behind his widow Mrs. Murti and four minor sons. Mohar Pal, Rajindra, Likhi Ram and Om Parkash and minor daughter Surest Wati. All of them are below the age of 7. The Tribunal has taken the view that the barber Mani Ram deceased must have been earning not less than Rs. 75 per mensem and after giving allowance of Rs. 35 per mensem for personal expenses, the Tribunal found that sum of Rs. 40 per mensem was being spent by the deceased on his widow and five minor children. Computing on that basis, the Tribunal held that these dependents had been deprived of income of Rs. 12,000 by assessing further life of the deceased at 25 years. The amount of compensation so assessed rather errs on low side. Again, it cannot be legitimately contented that the compensation awarded is in any way excessive.

In the result, the appeals are disallowed. There will; however, be no order as to costs.