Pepsu Road Trans. Corpn. vs Gurjit Kaur and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The matter here concerns the award of Rs. 33,400/- as compensation to the widow, children and father of Mukhtiar Singh, deceased, who was killed when the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation bus PUV 2370, he was travelling in, was involved in a head-on collision with another bus of the same Corporation, PUC 3148 coming from the opposite direction. This accident occurred on August 2, 1980 on the Faridkot-Kot Kapura Road. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the two buses involved in the accident.

In seeking to assail the finding on the issue of negligence, the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation put forth the plea that the accident had been caused "due to unforeseen mechanical defect which occurred due to some fault in bus PUC 3148 for which the driver concerned cannot be held at fault". This plea has been reproduced from the written statement filed on behalf of the Corporation. It would be pertinent to note that there was no mention there of what this "unforeseen mechanical defect" was.

Turning now to the evidence led on behalf of the Corporation to support this plea of mechanical defect of the bus being the cause of the accident, it came for the first time in the testimony of RW 2, Channan Singh, the driver of the bus PUC 3148 what this defect in fact was. He stated it to be breaking of the spring leaf of the bus. He went on to add, however, that he did not know if his bus had been inspected by any mechanic. RW 3, Faqir Chand, a clerk, brought the registration certificate of this bus and deposed that according to it, this bus was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector on August 21, 1979 and he had given a fitness certificate for it upto August 20,1980. The main testimony is that of RW 4, Mohan Singh, Head Mechanic, who stated that according to the Progress Register of buses, the bus PUC 3148 came to the workshop on August 8,1980 and he changed the right rear side leaf of the bus which was broken and that, at the time of repairs, he had made a general check of the bus. As regards this register, it is worthy of note that he was constrained to admit in cross-examination that its pages were not marked, nor did it bear any certificate of any officer. There was also no note in this register that any general check of the bus had been made by him.

The most significant feature of the case of the Corporation with regard to this plea of mechanical defect of the bus having led to the accident is the omission of any evidence to suggest that the bus was mechanically tested immediately after the accident to locate what the cause of accident could be. If some mechanical defect had led to the accident, such inspection would undoubtedly have revealed tell-tale signs to establish it.

Such thus being the state of evidence on the record, no occasion is provided thereby for returning a finding as sought by the Corporation with regard to the cause of the accident being as per the plea put forth by it.

In the matter of mechanical defect of the vehicle being put forth as a defence for an accident, the law stands settled by the judgment of this court in Bimla Devi and Others Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and Others where it was held that the burden of proving such defect lies upon the driver and owner of the vehicle concerned and it must be shown that such latent defect was such as could not have been detected despite reasonable care and due caution which was exercised by the owner and driver to keep the vehicle in a roadworthy condition. The evidence on record, in the present case, falls far short of establishing any such care or caution on the part of the Corporation. No warrant is thus provided for interfering with the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of the negligence.

Turning now to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, the evidence on record shows that Mukhtiar Singh deceased was only 34 years of age at the time of his death. He died leaving behind his 25 years old widow Gurjit Kaur and their three minor children, a son and two daughters, between the age of 8 and 2 1/2 years. Besides this, he also had his father, Nihal Singh, who was wholly dependent upon him.

Mukhtiar Singh deceased was employed as a Ward Attendant at the Primary Health Centre, Baja Khana at a monthly salary of about Rs. 340/- per month and in addition he also received pension, from the army, of Rs. 115/- per month. The total emoluments of Mukhtiar Singh were thus Rs. 455/- per month.

As is now well settled, compensation in such cases has to be assessed keeping in view the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 (P&H). In the context thereof and considering the situation and circumstances of the claimants and the deceased, it would be fair and just to fix the dependency at around Rs. 300/- per month with a multiplier of''16''. So computed, the compensation payable to the claimants would work out to Rs. 57,600/-, which may be rounded off to Rs. 60,000/-.

The compensation payable to the claimants is accordingly hereby enhanced to Rs. 60,000/- 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 payment of the amount awarded. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 7,500/-each shall be payable to the father and the children of the deceased and the balance to his widow, Gurjit Kaur.

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.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation is hereby dismissed while that of the claimants is accepted to the extent indicated. The claimants shall be entitled to their costs in both these appeals. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/- (one set only).