Sant Kaur and Others vs Nazar Singh and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—Denial of compensation to the claimants, on the finding that they had failed to prove that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus-driver, is what is challenged in appeal here. The claimants being the mother, widow and children of Mohinder Singh deceased, who, while standing at the bus-stand of village Bassian in Jagraon, District Ludhiana was run over and killed by the bus PUI-5605. This happened on June 14, 1981 at about 8 A.M.

According to the claimants, Mohinder Singh deceased was standing on the road side of the bus stand when on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus-driver; he was run over by the bus. This was controverted by the respondents, who denied any negligence on the part of the bus-driver. They instead took the plea that in the first information report, lodged after the accident, it was stated that the accident had taken place by chance and no body was liable for the accident. This statement, it was said, had been made in the presence of village Panchayat by the widow-Surjit Kaur.

A reference to the material on record would show that the case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of PW 1--Harbans Kaur and PW 2 Avtar Singh, who claimed to have witnessed the accident while waiting for the bus at the bus-stand. Both these witnesses deposed that the bus came there at a very fast speed from the side of Jagraon and hit into Mohinder Singh deceased, who was standing on the right berm of the road. PW 2 Avtar Singh also identified respondent-Nazir Singh as being the driver of the offending bus.

The respondents, on their part, examined the bus-driver RW 3 Nazir Singh, who gave no counter-version of the accident, but came-forth to depose that his bus was not involved in any accident. He denied the suggestion in cross-examination that it was his bus that had knocked down and killed Mohinder Singh deceased. It deserves mention here that the testimony of the bus-driver Nazir Singh is at variance with the stand in the written statement inasmuch as, there was no denial of the accident in the return. What was controverted there, was the allegation of rash and negligent driving, not that there had been no accident with this bus.

The main stress of the counsel for the respondents was upon the statement made by the widow PW 3 Surjit Kaur to the Police to the effect that the accident had occurred by chance and no one was to be blamed for it. In dealing with this matter, it is pertinent to note that Surjit Kaur has not been shown to have been an eye-witness to the occurrence. In the first information report, it is no doubt recorded that she had seen the occurrence, but she was not confronted with this portion of her statement when she came into the witness box, nor was it even suggested to her that she was there when the accident occurred. Further, PW 1 -Harbans Kaur had stated that Surjit Kaur had come there about 1-1/2 hour after the accident. This statement too was not challenged. In this situation, there is clearly no warrant for holding that the accident had been witnessed by the widow-Surjit Kaur. This being so, her statement to the police that the accident had occurred merely by chance, was clearly hear-say and therefore, not entitled by itself to warrant a finding to this effect.

Further, counsel for the respondents failed to show how the statement of Surjit Kaur that no one was to be blamed for the accident, could bar or estop her from seeking compensation by showing that the accident had in fact been caused due to the rash and negligent finding of the bus-driver. It would be apt to recall her the obssrvations of R.S. Sarkaria, J. in Sohan Devi Vs. The Dashmesh Transport Company (P.) Ltd. and Others, "The law is well-settled that such gratuitous admission can be withdrawn at any time by its maker, more so if it is made in ignorance of legal rights or true facts, and the situation of the opposite party has not been prejudiced and altered" such thus being the position in law and the circumstances being as narrated, the statement of the illiterate widow, Surjit Kaur, as recorded by the police can neither bar or estop her from claiming compensation, nor it can be construed as a circumstance to hold that the bus-driver was free from blame.

As regards the testimony of PW 1-- Harbans Kaur and PW 2 Avtar Singh, the main criticism levelled against it was that they had not joined in the investigation of the case. This, however, ignores the fact that after what had been recorded in the first information report, namely ; that this was a case of no negligence the case was closed. There was thus no occasion for any further investigation and in this view of the matter, the fact that no statement of these two witnesses was recorded by the police, cannot detract from their credibility. It will be seen that neither of them has been shown to be in any manner interested in the claimants nor could counsel point to any contradictions or discrepancies to create any doubt in their testimony. As regards the bus-driver, as mentioned earlier, he came forth with no counter-version of the accident. In this situation, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the accident here was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, by respondent--Nazir Singh.

Next to consider is the matter relating to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. The evidence on record shows that Mohinder Singh deceased was about 41 years of age at the time of his death. He died leaving behind his 38 years old widow Surjit Kaur, two sons and two daughters and mother Sant Kaur. The elder daughter Rambir Kaur was 20 years of age and the son Raghbir Singh was 17 years old. The other children were minors. All the children were unmarried and none of them was gainfully employed. The widow, children and mother of the deceased were all dependants upon him.

According to PW 4 Kartar Singh, Clerk from the Primary Health Centre, Hathur, Mohinder Singh deceased was employed as Sanitary Inspector and his total emoluments were around Rs. 800/- per month. Four instalments of Additional Dearness Allowance were released soonafter his death, which raised his salary to Rs. 900/- per month.

Keeping in view the circumstances and the situation of the claimants and the deceased, in the context of the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, 1979 PLR 1, the multiplier to be applied would obviously be ''16'' and the dependency deserve to be assessed at Rs. 7500/- per annum. The compensation payable to the claimants on this basis would work out to Rs. 1,20,000/-.

The claimants are accordingly hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rs. One lac and twenty thousand only) as compensation which they shall be entitled to along with interest at the rats of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each, shall be payable to the mother and the children of the deceased and the balance to his widow. 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.

The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.

It may be mentioned here that Mr. R.M. Suri, appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company had sought to content that no liability could be fastened upon the Insurance Company as the policy of the Insurance Company had been cancelled with effect from June 10, 1981, that is about four days prior to the accident. In dealing with this matter, it deserves, note that according to the testimony of RW 3 Brij Sayal, Branch Manager of the respondent-Insurance Company, that the letter Exhibit R/9, on the basis of which policy was cancelled with effect from June 10, 1981 was issued on June 16, 1981, that is, after the date of the accident. Earlier, a cover-note had been issued in respect of this bus which was valid till August 8, 1981. In this situation, in so far as claimants are concerned, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from liability.

This appeal is accordingly hereby accepted with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.