Smt. Phoolo vs State of Haryana and Another

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The accident here occurred on the Bahadurgarh-Jhajjar Road at about 6.30 P.M. on November 30, 1975. Ram Kumar, deceased, was returning home with his bullocks and harrow, when the Haryana Roadways bus HRR-2927 came from behind, hit into a bullock and also knocked him down. It was as a result of the injuries. sustained by him, in this accident, that he later died.

The claim for compensation put in by Smt. Phoolo, the mother of Ram Jimar, deceased, was negatived by the Tribunal holding, that she had failed to prove that the accident bad occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the bus driver. It is this finding that now stands challenged in appeal.

According to the claimant, the bus had come from behind at a very fast speed and hit into the deceased and the bullocks and had also run-over the harrow. It was also stated that no horn had been blown by the bus driver before this accident.

The version of the Respondent, bus driver, Mohar Singh on the other hand, was that the bus came there at a very slow speed The deceased was driving his bullock cart carelessly and as a warning, the horn had been blown. The bullocks got frightened and suddenly came on to the wrong side of the road and thereby caused this accident. The accident, it was said, had been caused by the negligence of the driver of the bullock-cart, who could not control the bullocks.

The eye witness account of this occurrence was given by three witnesses examined by the claimant, they being AW. 2 Jamuna, AW. 4 Nafe and AW. 5 Om Parkash. There was a criminal case registered against the bus driver Mohar Singh with regard to this accident on the First Information Report recorded on the statement of Om Parkash, which is on the record as Exhibit AW. 7/1. This statement was recorded at 8.15 P.M. that day, that is, within two hours of the occurrence. Mr. M.L. Sarin, counsel for the claimants laid great stress upon this piece of evidence as providing valuable corroboration to the version of the accident as put forth by the claimant.

It was the consistant testimony of AW. 2 Jamuna, AW. 4 Nafe as also AW. 5 Om Parkash that the deceased was walking on his correct side of the road when the bus came from behind at a very fast speed and hit into the bullocks, killing one of them and also knocking down the harrow and causing injuries to the deceased. RW. 2 Mohar Singh, the driver of the bus, on the other hand deposed that the deceased was sitting on the harrow while going along the road with his bullocks. On the horn being sounded, the bullocks got frightened and came on to the pucca portion of the road He then swerved the bus towards the right in order to save the bullocks. The bullock on the right hand side fell down and the harrow turned turtle. One of the blades of the harrow then struck the neck of the deceased. A similar version was deposed to by RW. 1 Satbir, the conductor of the bus.

It deserves note at the very out set that according to the version given by the bus driver in his written statement, the accident had taken place with a bullock-cart. There is no mention of any bullock-cart in the evidence of any of the witnesses examined in this case. There is then no mention in the written statement of how the deceased suffered the injuries. It was not stated whether or not the bus had hit into him. It was when they came into the witness box that both the driver of the bus as also the conductor sought to show that the deceased had been sitting on the harrow at that time. There is clearly no warrant to accept this statement.

What provides valuable corroboration to the evidence of the witnesses examined by the claimant is the First Information Report of the occurrence. Which was recorded on the statement of AW. 5 Om Parkash. This report was lodged without any delay, before there was any time or occasion to concoct any story. There is then on the record the site plan Exhibit R/1, prepared by AW. 3 Head Constable Hari Ram This site plan was not questioned by the Respondents in any manner. A reference there to would show that the accident took place on the left side of the road and the bus thereafter went on to the extreme right of the road stopped at a considerable distance from the place of impact. This is clearly indicative of the fast speed at which the bus had been travelling at that time.

It is significant to note that according to the. statement of Mohar Singh himself, he noticed the deceased only when he was ten feet away. On a clear road, when a person is walking, with his bullocks and harrow, a careful and cautious driver would have noticed them from a considerable distance and not merely 10 feet This by itself points to the negligence and carelessness of the bus driver. The conduct of the bus driver is also relevant here in that according to him no one was with the deceased at the time of the accident and yet immediately after it occurred, he ran away without making any effort to see to the deceased, who was lying injured at that time.

The Tribunal picked upon minor discrepancies in the testimony of the claimant''s witnesses and went to disbelieve their presence at the time of the occurrence. This is clearly no manner of asset-sing and appreciating evidence of witnesses, who are simple village folk The totality of the circumstances of this case, in the light of the evidence on record, leave no manner of doubt that the accident here occurred wholly on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.

The point that next arises for consideration is with regard to the amount payable to the claimant Smt. Phoolo as compensation, for the loss suffered by her on account of the death of her son Ram Kumar. The evidence on record shows that Ram Kumar was only 20 years of age at the time of his death. He was a cultivator looking after the land of his father, in such a case it is reasonable to assume that he would atleast have been earning what an agricultural labourer would have earned namely Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- per month. Applying here the principles as set out by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur (1979) 81 P.L.R. 1, it would be reasonable to assess the loss at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per annum. Considering that Smt. Phoolo was only 45 years of age when her son died, 16 would clearly be the appropriate multiplier. So computed the compensation payable would work out to Rs. 32,000/-. The claim here was, however, only for Rs. 39,000/- and no amount excess thereof can, thus, be awarded.

There is in this case also a claim for Rs. 2000/- as the loss suffered on account of the death of the bullock and Rs. 500/- as damage to harrow. It is the unrebutted testimony of AW. 1 Dr. Raghubir Singh, Incharge Vaternary Hospital, Bahadurgarh, who examined the bullock, that the value thereof was Rs. 2500/-. As regards the harrow there is the testimony of AW. 4 Nafe and AW. 5 Om Parkash that it was of the value of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/-. This evidence amply justifies the claim for Rs. 2000/- for loss of the bullock and Rs. 500/- for the damage to the harrow.

In the result, the claimant is hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 32, 500/- as compensation which she shall be entitled to along with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded The liability for payment of this amount shall be joint and several of both the Respondents.

This appeal is consequently accepted with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 300/-.