Smt. Janak Rani and Others vs District Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—On May 14, 1976, Madan Lal Sharma, Radio Operator at the Aeronautical Communication Station, Raja Sansi, Airport, Amritsar was going to Amritsar on a scooter. Mr. Tarlok Singh was with him on the pillion seat. There was an accident with a bus proceeding towards Ajnala on the Amritsar-A jnala road, Madan Lal Sharma was run over and killed at the spot. His widow and four children filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar The Tribunal found that the death of Mohan Lal Sharma was caused by rash and negligent driving of bus No. PNO 2720 by Kuidip Singh respondent. It further found that Madan Lal Sharma had contributed to the accident by his negligence. The Tribunal found that Madan Lal Sharma would have contributed Rs. 1,02,528/-. Keeping in view of the negligence of the deceased, a total compensation of Rs. 53,704/- only was awarded to the applicant. The liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. The claimants were also held entitled to the payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of award till the realisation of the compensation amount.

Aggrieved by this award, the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company riled an appeal. The claimants filed cross objections. The learned Single Judge held that the cause of the accident lay wholly with the deceased and consequently the finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal against the Bus driver cannot be sustained. "As a result, it was held that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the ''X'' Objections were dismissed. Aggrieved by this judgment of the learned Single Judge, the claimants have come up in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

We have heard Mr. S. C. Sibal for the appellants and Mr. Ashok Aggarwal for Respondeat No. 2. The primary contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge has erred in reversing the award of the Tribunal and that the well reasoned finding recorded by the learned Tribunal could not have been reversed in view of the evidence on record.

We have perused the evidence on record with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the oral testimony of Hardial Singh AW. 1 shows that "the bus was coming at a high speed. The driver of the bus did not blow any horn The front side of the bus struck against the scooter........the scooter was entangled with the bus and and the bus dragged the scooter and the driver of the scooter at (to) a distance of 50/60 feet." This part of the testimony was not seriously challenged during the course of cross examination This statement of Hardial Singh has been fully corroborated by Tarlok Singh, A. W. 4. He was travelling with the deceased on the scooter. Still further, the driver of the bus Kuldip Singh has appealed as R. W. 1. In his cross-examination, be clearly admits that "the road leading towards Aerodrome side is visible from a distance of one furlong on the main road". He further asserts that after the accident "my bus was stopped at a distance of 7-8 feet" and denied the suggestion that the bus had stopped at a distance of 40-50 feet. This is the only evidence led on behalf of the respondents.

On a perusal of the evidence, we are satisfied that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver and that the deceased was only guilty of contributory negligence deserves to be upheld. The primary reason on account of which the learned Single Judge reversed the finding of the Tribunal is that the person, emerging from a by lane was duty bound to allow the right of way to traffic proceeding on the main road. The learned Single Judge held that "the driver of motor vehicle on the main road is neither required to nor expected to slow down his vehicle while approaching or going past the by Jane or side road joining it to form the T Junction " Normally, a driver of the vehicle on the main road has the right of way,. However, in a case where he sees another vehicle approaching from a by lane at a T Junction, it is expected of the driver that he would slow down. In the present case, it is the admitted position that the by lane was visible to the bus driver from a distance of one furlong He could have thus easily seen the scooter driven by the deceased from a sufficient distance so as to enable him to slow down and blow the horn. He did not do either. In such a situation, the bus driver could not be absolved of the charge of being rash and negligent in driving.

Accordingly, we accept the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and restore the award of the Tribunal. As a result, compensation as assessed by the Tribunal alongwith the interest shall be payable to the claimants. The appellants shall also be entitled to the costs which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/-.