Santosh Kumari and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—On July 9, 1975 at about 12. 40 p.m. there was an accident between a bus and a scooter ON the Delhi-Gurgaon road near Raj Potteries within the area of the Municipal Committee, Gurgaon. The bus involved in this accident was HRG-6435 while the scooter was USB-9174. Fit. Lt. Jai Narain Sharma of the Indian Air Force who was on this scooter at that time was killed in this accident.

Mrs. Santosh Kumari, the widow of Fit. Lt. Jai Narain Sharma, deceased and their three children sought compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of the deceased. The claim for compensation was dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, on the finding that the claimants had failed to prove that the cause of the accident was negligence on the part of the bus driver. It is against this order that the present appeal is directed.

The version of the accident as put forth by the claimants was that Fit. Lt. Jai Narain Sharma, deceased, was to go to the Central Air Force School, Gurgaon, which is situated on the corner of the Sunder Singh Marg and the Delhi Gurgaon road. The deceased was coming from the Sunder Singh Marg and as this school was on the right thereof, he had turned towards the school by getting on to the kacha portion of the Delhi-Gurgaon road in front of this school and it was then that the offending bus coming from the side of Delhi had suddenly swerved to this kacha portion of the road and hit against the deceased. It was said that the bus was being driven negligently at a reckless speed at that time.

The driver of the bus Jag Ram, Respondent while denying negligence on his part gave no counter version of the accident. It was left, however, to the Respondent State and the General Manager of the Haryana Roadways to come forth with a different version of the accident. According to them, the deceased was following a bus proceeding towards Delhi. He tried to overtake this bus and thereby suddenly came on the road. On seeing the Haryana Roadways bus coming from the opposite direction, he lost control and the scooter then struck against this bus which in the meanwhile had been taken to the extreme left by the driver who had applied brakes and brought it to a halt. It was said that the scooter had hit into a stationary bus.

The two witnesses, who were examined by the claimants to depose to the manner in which the accident took place were AW 1, Mohan Singh and AW 2, Sital Parsad, both employees of Raj Potteries. It was their testimony that they were waiting for a bus outside Raj Potteries to go to Delhi in connection with the work of their factory when they happened to witness this accident. They both deposed that immediately after the accident it were they who took the deceased in another bus to the hospital where the deceased soon after arrival was declared dead. It is also in evidence that a criminal case came to be registered against the bus-driver with regard to this accident and the first information report was lodged on the statement of AW 1 Mohan Singh. This statement had been recorded at 3 or 3.30 p.m. Neither of these witnesses has been shown to be in any manner interested in or under the influence of the claimant. Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Advocate General, Haryana could in fact suggest no reason or motive for either of these witnesses to give a biased or motivated version of this accident.

As regards the manner in which the accident took place, it was the clear and consistent testimony of both AW 1, Mohan Singh and AW 2, Sital Parsad that the Haryana Roadways bus No. HRG 6435 had come there at a fast speed from the side of Delhi. The deceased, on the other hand came from Sunder Singh Marg on his scooter which was being driven at slow speed. It was on the kacha path when the bus came and hit into him and threw him off his scooter. They also deposed that there was no other traffic on the Delhi Gurgaon Road at that time. This version stands corroborated by first information report recorded on the statement of AW 1, Mohan Singh.

Turning to the Respondent''s case, there is only the statement of RW 1 Jag Ram, the driver of the bus, involved in the accident. According to him, he had been driving the bus at normal speed and when he reached near the place of occurrence, he saw a bus coming from the opposite direction. The deceased tried to over take this bus while driving his scooter at a fast speed seeing this he took his bus towards the left side and on to the kacha path where he stopped it. The deceased could not control his balance and the scooter then dashed against the standing bus. He then got down from the bus and took the deceased to the Civil Hospital and from there he went to the police station where he got the first information report recorded. It will be recalled that no such version was pleaded by Jag Ram in his written statement. It is also pertinent to note that the testimonies of AW 1, Mohan Singh and AW 2, Sital Parsad that it was they who took the deceased to the hospital and that it was on the statement of Mohan Singh that the first information report was recorded, was not challenged. There is also on record the statement of AW 8, HC Bal Kishan, the investigating officer, who deposed to the recording of the first information report in this case. It was not even suggested to him that the first information report had been recorded on the statement of the driver, Jag Ram.

Reference may here be made to the site plan prepared by AW 8, HC Bal Kishan soon after the recording of the first information report. This site plan which was prepared on the pointing of AW 1, Mohan Singh and AW2, Sital Parshad shows that the accident had taken place on the kacha portion of the road in front of the Air Force Central School which undoubtedly lends further corroboration to the version of the witnesses examined by the claimants. The Tribunal came to doubt the presence of AW 1, Mohan Singh and AW 2, Sital Parsad on grounds which clearly do not warrant the importance, the Tribunal gave to them. The Tribunal in the first instance doubted the presence of these two witnesses by adverting to the fact that they were proceeding to Delhi to make purchases but no money had been given to them for this purpose. This has been amply explained by these witnesses that they had also to recover cash from various people in Delhi and it was with that money that the purchases were to be made. The fact, therefore, they had not been given any money for the purchases is thus not matter of any significance.

The Tribunal was next influenced against Mohan Singh and Sital Prasad by the contradiction appearing in their evidence on the point-whether or not they had gone to Delhi that day after this accident. Whereas Mohan Singh has stated that they had not gone to Delhi, Sital Parsad had said that they had gone. This again appears to have been given far greater importance than it deserves. It must be borne in mind that this was a statement being made in court after fifteen months of the accident. The main thing to be noted in the testimony of these two witnesses is their disinterestedness; the consistent version of the accident given by them and the corroboration afforded thereto by their conduct in taking the deceased to the hospital and the first information report recorded on the statement of Mohan Singh AW1. As regards the version given by bus driver, it will be noted that this too was not accepted by the Tribunal who preferred instead his own theory with regard to the manner in which he assumed the accident to have taken place. Be that as it may, the facts and the circumstances as set out above and in the light of the evidence on record it leaves no manner of doubt that the accident here took place entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of Jag Ram. The finding of the Tribunal to the contrary must thus be set aside.

The next question to be considered in this case is the quantum of compensation that the claimants are entitled to. The evidence on record shows that Fit. Lt. Jai Narain Sharma was 51 years of age and he was due to retire from service in about another six months. His date of retirement being January 17, 1976. The total emoluments of the deceased at the time of his death as per the testimony of RW 2, P. K. Srivastava of CD.A. (pension) Allahabad were Rs. 1,768/- per month. The claimant Mrs. Santosh Kumari, while appearing in the witness box as AW 9 had deposed that her husband used to give her Rs. 900/- per month for household expenses.

Next to note is the testimony of AW 5, Fit. Lt. V. K. Vasishat. He stated that the deceased, who belonged to his Unit, had applied for re-employment and 75 per cent of the Officers who applied for such re-employment were granted it. According to him there was a reasonable prospect of the deceased also being given re-employment. Upon such re-employment his salary would have been almost the same as he had been getting before retirement. Reverting back to the testimony of RW 2 Srivastava, the deceased would also be entitled to a pension of Rs. 575/- per month.

The claimants here are the widow of the deceased, Mrs. Santosh Kumari aged 46 years and their three children Vishesh Kumar aged 19, Sushma Rani aged 15 and Naresh Kumar aged 12.

The principles to be borne in mind for the computation of compensation in such a case are as laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 A.C.J. 170 (P. and H.) where it was held that the compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependants by the death of the person concerned and for the purpose of calculating the just compensation, annual dependency of the dependants should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose, annual earning of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependants will be the determining factor. This basic figure will then be multiplied by a suitable multiplier. Bearing in mind the principles set out above and keeping in view the fact that the deceased had only a few months more for his retirement and there was also a reasonable prospect of his being re-employed for another period of four years and he would then also have been entitled to pension, it would be fair and just to treat the financial loss suffered by the claimants to be at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month and the appropriate multiplier in this case to be ''ten''. Computed on this basis, the claimants must be held entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. (750 � 12 � 10) 90,000/-.

There is also a claim for Rs. 1,000/- as the cost of the repairs for the damage done to the scooter at the time of the accident. There is in this behalf the testimony of AW 4, R.L. Sachdev of Amba Motors, who produced the record and deposed that the total cost of the repairs came to Rs. 1,000/-. The claimants are clearly entitled to this amount.

In the result, the claimants are hereby awarded Rs. 91,000/- (Ninety-one thousand only) as compensation which shall be payable to them alongwith interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of the payment of the amount awarded. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- each, shall be paid to Vishesh Kumar and Sushma Rani and Rs. 15,000/- to Naresh Kumar, while the balance shall be paid to the widow Mrs. Santosh Kumari.

This appeal is thus accepted to the extent indicated above with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.