Piara Singh and Others vs Gian Kaur and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—On August 27, 1973 at about 11.30 A. M, there was an accident between a motor cycle and a truck at a crossing in the Industrial Area, Chandigarh. Jaswant Singh, the driver of the motor-cycle sustained serious injuries as a result of which he later died.

It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of Piara Singh the truck driver. The claimants, who are the widow and rive minor children of the deceased, were awarded a sum of Rs. 44.000/- as compensation.

This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the driver and owner of the truck involved in the accident and the Insurance Company with which the truck was insured, seeking to challenge thereby their liability for payment of compensation in this case, as also the other appeal tiled by the claimants seeking enhanced compensation.

As has been mentioned above, the accident here took place at a crossing. It has come in evidence that both the roads thereof were of the same width with neither of them having been designated its amain road. The deceased had come on to the crossing from the right hand side of the truck driver. It was the case of the claimants that the motor-cycle had con e on to the crossing before the truck had reached there and in fact, had almost crossed it when the truck came and hit into it. The Respondent-truck driver, on the other hand blamed the accident upon the negligence of the deceased, but it is pertinent to note that in the written statement he came forth with no counter version.

The claimants had examined three witnesses to depose to this accident. They being P.W. 4, Shamsher Singh, P W. 5 Pritam Singh and P.W. 7 Ram Singh, the brother of Jaswant Singh, deceased. It was their consistent testimony that the truck came on to this crossing at a very fast speed and hit into the motor-cycle when it had almost crossed it On account of the fast speed of the truck the motor-cycle had been dragged to cover 20 yards in the accident

The Respondents, on the other hand, examined R W. 1 Piara Singh and R. W 3 Mehnga Singh to depose to their version of the accident, which was to the effect that seeing the truck, the deceased jumped off the motor-cycle and it was as a result of the injuries suffered by him by falling down in this manner, that he died.

As regards the motor-cycle, R.W. 3 Mehnga Singh deposed that it hit the payment and fell. His statement, in fact, was that neither the motor-cycle nor the deceased collided with the truck. R.W. 1. Piara Singh on the other hand -stated that the motor-cycle had only slightly hit the truck This testimony stands falsified, not only by the witnesses examined by the claimants, but also the photographs taken soon after the accident. There are clear marks of dragging of the motor-cycle by the truck and, in fact, motor cycle is seen lying between the front two wheels of the truck.

Further, it deserves note that this version of R W. 1 Piara Singh and R.W. 3 Mehnga Singh that the deceased had jumped off the motor-cycle was not mentioned in the written statement nor was it put to P.W. 4 Shamsher Singh _ and P W. 5 Pritam Singh P.W. 7 Ram Singh was the only witness to whom such a suggestion was made and he denied it

A reading of the testimony of R.W. 1 Piara Singh and R.W. 3 Mehnga Singh would show that an attempt was made to put forth Mehnga Singh as the driver of the truck. Contradictory evidence came forth on this aspect of the matter from both Piara Singh and Mehnga Singh and also R.W. 2 Charan Singh, the owner of the truck. While Piara Singh stated that he had been working as a driver on this truck for the last 7 to 8 years. Mehnga Singh deposed that he was the only driver for the last 5 to 6 years. R.W. 2 Charan Singh went to the extent stating that Piara Singh was not concerned with them at all. A relevant factor here is that Piara Singh stands convicted by the Criminal Court in respect of this very accident.

The presence of P.W. 4 Shamsher Singh and P.W. 5 Pritam Singh was sought to be doubted on the ground that they were witnesses, whom the deceased knew. This fact by itself.cannot betaken to create any doubt in their testimony. Their presence at the spot at the time of the accident was duly explained by them which renders their being there probable and natural. Both the witnesses have given a consistent account of the occurrence with no contradictions or discrepancies, to create any doubt therein. There can thus be no manner of doubt that the accident in this case took place as deposed to by them.

In a case like the present where the accident occur at a road inter-section with are 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 stand attracted thereto A duty is cast upon the driver of a motor vehicle, by the provisions of Regulation 6, to slow down while approaching a road inter-section 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 nay be traveling in his vehicle. Regulation 7 casts the further duty upon such driver that on entering the inter-section to give way to traffic proceeding on the road, if any, designated as a main road and in other cases to that approaching the inter-section from his right hand side. In other words, both the driver of the truck as also the motor-cycle were under an obligation to slowdown on approaching the crossing and to proceed to enter it only if they could do so with safety to themselves and Ors. there As for the truck driver, there was the further duty cast upon him to give right of way to the motor-cycle, as it was coming from his right. It is apparent that both the truck and the motor-cycle came on to the crossing in disregard of what Regulation 6 has prescribed. If the deceased had exercised due care and caution before entering the crossing, he would undoubtedly have noticed not only the truck but also the speed thereof and manner in which it was being driven. The sheer instinct for self preservation would have impelled him to allow the truck to pass before seeking to go through the crossing. In the case of the truck, there can be no manner of doubt that there was no slowing down while approaching the crossing nor was any regard shown to the safety of others. It came on to the crossing at a fast speed and hit into the motor-cycle which had undoubtedly come into the crossing earlier and that too from its right. The requirements of not only Regulation 6, but those of Regulation 7 too were thus observed by the truck driver wholly in their breach. In this situation, there is no escape from the conclusion that both the deceased motor-cyclist as also the truck driver contributed to the accident that occurred.

The question arises as to the extent of the blame to be fastened upon the deceased motor-cyclist and on the truck driver for this accident. The contention of Mr. G.S. Giani, counsel for the truck driver was that both must be held to be equally responsible. In other words, the contributory negligence of the deceased must be held to be to the extent of 50 percent. He sought to rely here on two judgments of this Court in The Tourist Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. Ambalit Cantt, v. Dr. Om Parkash (1973) 75 P.L. Rule 486 and O.P. Vijh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, . In both these cases the drivers of the two vehicles involved in the accident which occurred at a road intersection were held to be equally liable. It is pertinent to note, however, that both these cases dealt with the provisions of Regulation 6 only The provisions of Regulation 7 did not arise for consideration nor was any argument addressed based upon it. These cases are thus, distinguishable on this ground.

Mr. Hemant Kumar, counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, sought to rely upon Jaswant Kaur and Others Vs. Ratti Ram and Others, , where the driver of the vehicle which came on to the crossing from the right was wholly absolved from blame for the accident This case too does not provide any binding precedent here, as the offending vehicle was found to have no brakes and despite this it had come on to the crossing at a fast speed.

Seen in the totality of the circumstances of this case, in the light of the matters discussed above, the contributory negligence of the deceased deserves to be taken to he 33 per cent and that of the Respondent-truck driver at 67 per cent The finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence is consequently modified accordingly.

Turning to the matter relating to the amount payable as compensation, it has come in evidence that Jaswant Singh, deceased, was only 33 years of age at the time of his death. Re died leaving behind his widow Smt. Gian Kaur, aged 32 years and five minor children. The deceased was running his own business of manufacture of rolling shutters and fabrication of steel articles. He had an industrial plot where he carried on this business. A part of this plot had been rented out. The rental income from this being about Rs. 5,500/- per year. Besides this, there is evidence from the income tax Department to show that his income during the year 1970-71 was Rs. 11,750/- (Exhibit P-14), in 1972-73 it was Rs. 14,988/- (Exhibit P-15) and in 1974-75 it was Rs. 14,950/- (Exhibit P-17).

The principles on which compensation has to be assessed in such a case are those as laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur (1979) 81 P.L. Rule 1. Keeping in view the relevant factors set out. therein, the loss to the claimants must be computed at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per annum This figure has been arrived at after making due allowance of the rental income that the claimants continue to get even after the death of the deceased as also the amount that the deceased would have spent upon himself during his life time 16 would clearly be the appropriate multiplier here and on this basis the compensation payable to the claimants would work out to Rs. 1,20,000/-. After making a deduction on account of the contributory negligence of the deceased the claimants must be held entitled to and are hereby awarded to a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. The claimants shall be entitled to the amount awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of the application to the dale of the payment of the amount awarded. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs 30,000/- shall be paid to the widow Smt. Gian Kaur arid the balance shall be paid to her five children in equal shares. 7he amounts payable to the minor children shall be paid to them in such manner as the Tribunal may deem to be in their best interest.

n the result the appeal filed by the claimants is accepted with costs; while the other appeal is hereby dismissed. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/- (one set only).