Primla Devi and Others vs Punjab State and Others

S.P. Kurdukar, C.J.—This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order May 15, 1984 passed by the learned Single Judge in F.A.O. No. 201 of 1979 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants. The learned Single Judge confirmed the judgment and order dated February 20, 1979 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar dismissing the claim petition of the appellants.

The appellants (Claimants) on January 2, 1978 filed a claim petition, claiming Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of compensation, u/s 110 B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Appellants No. 2 to 5 are childien and appellant No. 6 is the mother. It was alleged in the claim petition that deceased Keshva Nand son of Ram Chand was knocked down by a public vehicle owned by respondents No. 1 and 2. The accident took place on June 29, 1977 and in the accident Keshva Nand suffered multiple injuries. Due to injuries to skull and brain, he died in the hospital. Respondent No. 3 is the driver of the said bus. It is alleged by the appellants that deceased Keshva Nand son of Ram Chand was going on his bicycle towards Nangal Town. The public vehicle driven by respondent No. 3. was coming from the opposite direction and it was being driven at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner. Since the bus was driven at a high speed, its driver was unable to control it and as a result thereof Keshva Nand son of Ram Chand was knocked down. The appellants have in all claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of compensation from the respondents.

The claim was contested mainly on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. They denied that respondent No. 3, the driver, was driving the vehicle at a high speed or it was driven in a rash or negligent manner. According to respondents No. 1 and 2, Keshva Nand deceased was driving his bicycle on the wrong side. When he saw the vehicle approaching, he got perplexed and took a sudden turn towards his left. He was very much confused and collided his bicycle with the water pipe which was protruding and as a result thereof he dashed against the rear portion of the vehicle. They pleaded that the claim of the appellants is false and the same be dismissed.

On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that deceased Keshva Nand was driving his bicycle on the wrong side and since he puzzled while taking the turn he dashed against the public vehicle. He also held that the vehicle was not driven at a high speed.

Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the appellants preferred F.A.O. No. 201 of 1979. However, they lost the first appeal before the learned. Single Judge. It is against this concurrent judgment, the appellants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

Mr. Sharma learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants urged that the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have totally mis-read and mis-interpreted the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellants. He urged that the findings recorded by the Tribunal and learned Single Judge are contrary to the evidence on record and, therefore, are unsustainable. According to him, the vehicle in question was driven by respondent No. 3 at a very high speed and it is because of this high speed, the driver lost his control on the vehicle. It swerved on the wrong side and dashed against Keshva Nand.

The first question that falls for our consideration is as to whether respondent No. 3 was driving the vehicle in an excessive speed and whether due to this high speed, the vehicle went on a wrong side and dashed against Keshva Nand since deceased. The site plan showing the scene of accident is Ex. R1. From the site plan and the description given therein, it is, almost very difficult to find out the place of accident and at what point of time Keshva Nand or the vehicle moved in right or wrong direction. Moreover, this site plan is also not drawn to the scale. We, therefore, do not attach much importance to this piece of documentary evidence.

On behalf of the appellants/claimants, Dr. Balbir Singh appeared as PW1 and Dr. Ashok Kumar as PW2. Both these doctors in their evidence have described the injuries sustained by Keshva Nand. From the evidence of these expert witnesses, there is no manner of doubt that Keshva Nand sustained serious injures on his person and as a result thereof he died.

Raunaq Lal PW 4 and Jagan Nath PW 5 are the witnesses who have seen the accident in question. In addition to these two eye witnesses, the appellants have also examined Subh Karan Dass PW6, brother of deceased Keshva Nand and Primla Devi, PW7, widow of Keshva Nand, appellant No. 1.

We have carefully scrutinised the evidence of Raunaq Lal PW4 and Jagan Nath PW5. Raunaq Lal PW is a Sarpanch of village Manakpur and in his evidence he stated that he was at a short distance when the accident took place. He further stated that when he reached in the area of Jawahar market, Nangal he saw the vehicle in question approaching from the opposite direction and it was running at a high speed. He then stated that the said vehicle dashed against Keshva Nand. The same is the evidence of other eye witness Jagan Nath PW5. Both these witnesses have categorically stated that the bus swerved on the wrong side and dashed against Keshva Nand. Both these witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the respondents but we find no material brought out during their cross-examination which would dis-credit their testimony. Once the evidence of these two witnesses is accepted that the vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 3 at a high speed and it dashed against Keshva Nand who was riding the bicycle, it must follow that the vehicle was driven by respondent No. 3 at a high speed and as a result thereof, he lost control over it and it dashed against Keshva Nand. The evidence of these two eye-witnesses if read with the medical evidence, it must follow that deceased-Keshva Nand sustained ''multiple injuries on his person and as a result thereof he died.

Mr. Aggarwal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, however, drew our attention to the evidence of two witnesses examined by the respondents and urged that the evidence adduced by the appellants is unreliable and the same be rejected. He also urged that the respondents have led the evidence of respectable persons and there was no reason for them to depose falsely.

We have gone through the evidence of Rattan Singh RW1 and Hardial Singh RW2. Both these witnesses claimed to be passengers travelling in the vehicle involved in the accident. The evidence of both these witnesses does not inspire confidence and we, therefore, do not think it proper to rely upon their evidence.

After scrutiny of oral evidence on the record, we conclude that the accident in question took place because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle owned by respondents No. 1 and 2 and as a result of this rash and negligent driving, Keshva Nand was knocked down. Keshva Nand (deceased) received injuries on his person and as a result there of he died in the hospital.

Coming to the question of compensation, we have gone through the evidence of the witnesses adduced by the appellants. The evidence of some of the witnesses indicates that Keshva Nand was earning Rs. 500/- per month, Against this evidence, an independent witness says that he was earning Rs. 150/- per month. We accept the evidence of independent wilnesss and on the basis thereof we hold that Keshva Nand was earning Rs. 150/- per month. The total annual income of Keshva Nand deceased thus would be worked out to Rs. 1800/-. Out of this income if 1/3 rd is deduced for his own expenses, it could be held that he was contributing Rs. 1200/- per annum towards his family members. It appears from the medical evidence that Keshva Nand was 42 years of age at the time of his death. Applying the multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation would be worked out to Rs. 19,200/-. We make it a round figure to Rs. 20,000/-. The claim petition was filed on January 2, 1078. The respondents shall pay Rs. 20,000/- to the appellants with interest, at the rate of 12% per annum from the dale of the application i.e. January 2, 1978 till realisation.

In the result, appeal succeeds; the impugned award and judgment passed by the Tribunal and learned Single Judge are quashed and set aside and the claim of the appellants is partly allowed.

The respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the appellants together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application i.e. January 2, 1978 till realisation by way of compensation. Costs of the Letters Patent Appeal are quantified at Rs. 500/-.