Punjab State vs Krishna Devi and Others

C.G. Suri, J.—Mr. Ram Sarup, Assistant Accountant in the Head Post Office at Hoshiarpur was run over and killed by Punjab Roadways Bus No. PNJ-6139 while he was going on foot on Afghan Road, a busy bazar inside Hoshiarpur City at about 6.00 P.M. on December 13,1961. His age at the time was about 41 or 42 years His companion, Mr. K.K. Saini, A.W. lodged a report, Exhibit A Wl/1, at the Police Station about this accident "within half an hour.

On a claim being filed by the deceased''s widow aged about 35 years and six children aged between. 5 years to 21 years, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded them a sum of Rs. 9,600/- only as compensation u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal made the driver of the bus involved in the accident liable to the extent of 50 percent only for his rash and negligent driving on the assumption that the deceased had also been guilty of contributory negligence. Both the parties feel aggrieved and have filed cross appeals Nos. 19 and 38 of 1964. This order shall dispose of both these appeals as they involve common questions of law and fact.

The deceased was run over in a busy part of the city of Hoshiarpur. It is in evidence that he was on his extreme left side of the road and that he was run oyer on the kacha portion by a rear wheel of the bus. The driver was negotiating a dangerous bend in the road and his duty was hot over simply because he had steered clear the front portion of the bus. The driver was incharge of the entire vehicle and was as much responsible for steering the rear portion of the body of the bus clear of all pedestrians and obstructions. It is true that the Chemical Examiner''s report shows the presence of alcohol in the viscera and the stomach of the deceased but inspite of the state of his intoxication the "deceased was going on one side of the road and was on the kacha (unmetalled) portion. He was also on his extreme left side of the road. The bus was coming from the opposite direction and was supposed to be driving on Just the other side of the road. When a bus *driver is negotiating a dangerous bend in the road in a thickly populated part of a busy town he is expected to take extra care that any pedestrians are not knocked down or run oyer by his vehicle. It does not seem to make any difference that it was the rear portion of the vehicle that had knocked down the pedestrian walking on the kacha portion oftherpad on his correct side. In a situation like this, a speed of even 10 or 15 miles an hour could be described as rash in view of the actual consequences, that have followed. As long as the deceased was walking on one side of the kacha portion of the road, it does not seem to make any difference that he had taken a little liquor. He had not thereby lost his right to safety and protection against dangerous and careless driving of public vehicles. No bus driver can claim the right to run over tipsy pedestrains whether by the front or the rear portion of the vehicle under his charge as long as the pedestrian is walking carefully. The deceased''s companion Mr. K.K. Saini, saved himself by jumping aside just in time but that does not mean that we should expect the deceased to have performed the same acrobatic feat. According to the witnesses examined by the dependents of the deceased, the bus was going at a fast speed and had negotiated a turning of the road in a dangerous manner. This evidence is corroborated by the consequences that have ensure The deceased was knocked down by the rear bumper of the bus and then run over by the hind wheel. The bus had not blown any horn and passed over a pedestrian going on the kacha portion of the road on his correct side. The witnesses examined by the state had obviously not seen the accident. They claim to have reached the place after hearing the alarm about the accident. Dhani Ram, R.W. claims to have been following the bus at a short distance and he also did not hear the bus driver sounding the horn. Under the circumstances, there was no question of the liability for the accident being shared by the deceased even if he was in a state of slight intoxication.

The driver of the bus was challenged for rash and negligent driving. The findings of the Criminal Court on the basis of which he has been acquitted are not known. It can be that the identity of the driver had not been established in the criminal case. For purposes of deciding a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act the identity and ownership of the bus would have to be established and it would not make any material difference as to who was the person behind the steering wheel as long as he was found to be rash and negligent in his driving.

As regards the quantum of compensation, the deceased had an income from his salary of about Rs. 225/- per month. It is not clear how the learned Tribunal has come to the finding that he could have been sparing only Rs. 100/- per month for his dependents. The cost of maintaining seven growing up family members these days could alone eat up into his entire income. Moreover, it is in evidence that all the six children were receiving education in schools and colleges. The eldest child Sudharshan Kumari is studying in the Junior basic Training Class while the next child, Romesh. Kumar, is studying in a college inF.A Classes. The expenses of educating these children would have also been considerable. There is no other earning member in the family. The deceased had not been able to put aside anything substantial for the rainy day because his widow tells us that the family has nothing saved up. Under the circumstances, the loss of income to the dependents has been very conservatively estimated at Rs. 100/- per month. Moreover, the period for which the compensation has been calculated places the deceased''s normal expectation of life at the age of 58 years only. My attention has however been drawn to some recent rulings which take the view that average life expectancy in India should in such cases be taken as 70 year. A Division Bench ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Shiv Prasad Gupta v. S.M. Sabir Zaidi 1967 A.C.J. 321, has been cited in this connection. This ruling was followed in two Bench decisions of this Court reported as Savitri Devi and Anr. v. The Makrkotla Bus Service (P) Ltd. and Ors. 1969 A.C.J. 173 and Sukhdev Singh v. Pepsu Hoad Transport Corporation Patiala. 1969 A.C.J. 197 The same view may appear to have been taken in Gomathi Animal and Ors. v. Ramchandran Pttlai and Anr. 1967 A.C.J. 15, but the deceased in that case had already attained the age of 63 years at the time of his death in an accident. In Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhbpat and Anr. v. Munnabai and Ors. 1967 A.C.J. 214 the average life expectancy was taken to be 75 years. There was however evidence in all such cases that the members of the deceased''s family were generally long lived. In the present case the average logevity of life of other members of the deceased''s family or the evidence about the age of the deceased at the time of the accident is not very convincing. The learned Tribunal has calculated the amount of compensation as if the deceased could be expected to have lived for another 16 years or so.

In view of these rulings the deceased could have been normally expected to have-lived a little longer. The learned Counsel for the Punjab State, Mr. Jawanda, however, argues that the deceased would have retired at the age of 58 years. If the deceased could, have lived upto that age of superannuation, his salary was sure to have gone up substantially and there was nothing improbable that his pension would have worked out to the present rate of his emoluments. Anyhow, the dependents of the deceased are being awarded compensation as if the driver of the bus was fully responsible for the accident and the lumpsum payment would compensate the dependents for the likely improvement in the prospects of the deceased if he had lived the normal span of life. I am also not imposing any cut or deduction on this lumpsum payment. In this connection, Mr. Sun, the learned Counsel for the dependents of the deceased has relied upon Punjab State v. Hardeep Kaur and Ors. 1970 A.C.J. 150, Prem Singh and Ors. v. Tika Ram and Ors. 1967 A.C.J. 243, Narain Devi v. Dev Raj and Ors. 1967 A.C.J. 344, and Himachal Government Transport, Simla v. Joginder Singh and Anr. 1970 A.C.J. 37, but the circumstances of each case have to be kept in mind as was observed in Oriental Fire A General Insurance Co. Ltd New Delhi and Ors. v. Chuni Lal and Ors. (1968) 2 All E.R. 708 and some of the rulings cited above.

For the reasons given above, the appeal filed by the Punjab State is dismissed. The cross appeal filed by the dependents of the deceased is accepted and the compensation amount is raised to Rs. 19,200/- parties are left to bear their own costs.