Snkhder Raj Jain and Others vs Shanti Devi and Others

S.C. Mittal, J

On 26th January, 1966, in consequence of the accident in question which occurred at 3.30 p.m. on the Mathura Road, Satney Singh lost his life. Car No. DLI 5121 involved in it was driven at the relevant time by Sukhdev Raj Jain. Mrs. Shanti Devi, widow of Samey Singh, Vijay and Muni, his daughters, Hari Pal, Ram Pal and Jagat Pal his sons, and Sukh Rani mother of the deceased, filed application u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation against Sukhdev Raj Jain, M/s Picture Varnishers and Indian Mercantile Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, allowed the claim of Rs. 30,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the Sukhdev Raj Jain and two others mentioned above.

It is undisputed fact that the accident did occur on the aforesaid date and time on the Mathura Road and that Samey Singh lost his life in consequence. The version of Shanti Devi and other applicants is that Samey Singh was going from his village on his bicycle to Faridabad. The car driven by Sukhdev Raj Jain came from behind at a fast speed. Horn was not blown. Samey Singh was hit in such a way that from his cycle he got on the bonnet of the car and dashed against the front wind screen which crashed. The injuries sustained by him proved fatal. He died the same day.

On the other hand, Sukhdev Raj Jain admitted that he was driving the car in question and stated that Samey Singh contributed to the accident in the following way. Samey Singh was behind a stationary bus. When the bus set in motion, Samey Singh got on his cycle and caught the iron bar on the rear of the bus. For some distance, Samey Singh was pulled by the but. When it gained speed, Samey Singh lost the grip of the iron bar and also his balance. He went to the extreme of the right side of the road. The car was behind him. Horn was blown, yet Samey Singh did not get away and the accident occurred. M/s Picture Varnishers, the owners of the car, raised objection that the application against them was barred by time. It was also opposed by the Insurance Company above named. Following issues were framed:

Whether the alleged accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver Sukhdev Raj, Respondent No. 1, as claimed and whether Samey Singh died on account of the injuries received by him in that accident ?

Whether the accident in question took place on account of the negligence of the deceased and what is its effect ?

Whether the applicants are the persons entitled to the compensation and what compensation, if any, is due and to whom and from whom ?

Whether the claim is within time against M/s picture Varnishers ?

Relief.

Issues 1 to 4 were decided in favour of the applicants and they were awarded Rs. 30,000/- as compensation.

The applicants examined Tej Ram (P.W. 1) Sukh Ram (P.W. 2) and Sarni Mal (P.W. 3) in support of their version. Tej Ram testified that at the relevant time he was also riding on his cycle towards Faridabad. Samey Singh was ahead of him at some distance. The car in question came at a fast speed. The driver did not blow the horn and struck against Samey Singh who fell on the bonnet and dashed against the wind screen of the car which crashed. The driver stopped the car at a distance of about 25 yards. Samey Singh was taken by the same car to the hospital. Sukh Ram (P.W. 2) made a similar deposition. P.W. 3 is Sarni Mal, on Octroi Moharrir, who saw the accident from a distance of 200 paces. His version to is in accord with that of the other two witnesses. A very striking feature of their evidence is that none of them is either interested in the deceased or in any way inimical towards the driver of the car. As regards the counter-version, in the first place it is given by Sukhdev Raj (R.W. 1), the driver, who is interested in saving his skin. Satinder Kumar (R.W. 3) and Brij Lal (R.W. 4) who were traveling with him in the car are admittedly his friends and, therefore, interested. The version of Sukhdev Raj is not at all probable. His evidence reveals that he saw the stationary bus from a distance of about 100 yards. At the time, on his own showing, the speed of his car was 25-30 miles per hour. In the normal course of things, he would have easily overtaken the bus before it could gain speed. Above all, one fails to see why should he come so close to the bus and behind it that he would leave no margin between the cyclist,, i.e., Samey Singh deceased, and his car.

Reliance was then placed on Report Exhibit R. 2 made by A.S.I. Om Parkash (R.W. 2) of Police Station, Fandabad, to the effect that the accident was due to the contributory negligence of Samey Singh. The report of the Assistant sub-inspector and his evidence are based on the statement of Sukhan Lal Member Panchayat who was produced as P.W. 5 by the applicants. The said witness categorically denied his having witnessed the accident. That being so, the report of the Assistant sub-Inspector is of no avail to the driver of the car. For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in affirming the findings of the Accidents Claims Tribunal on issues 1 and 2.

The Tribunal has given cogent reasons for condoning the delay in impleading M/s Picture Varnishers, Delhi. I see no reason to differ from them. Hence the decision of the Tribunal on this issue is, also affirmed.

Coming now to issue No. 3, the applicants being the widow, sons, daughters and mother of Samey Singh deceased are entirely dependent upon him and are obviously entitled to compensation. As regards the quantum thereof, their evidence convincingly is that ten days before the incident in question, Samey Singh was employed at Rs. 150/- P.M. by Frick India Ltd., Faridabad, as molder. Formerly, Samey Singh served M/s G.N.C. Himco Industries in this capacity in Faridabad at a salary of Rs. 110/- P.M. Besides, he earned Rs. 50/- P.M. approximately as overtime charges. As such, the finding of the Tribunal that the income of Samey Singh was Rs. 150/- P.M. at the time of the accident is unquestionable. Regarding his age, his widow Shanti came in the witness-box and also her brother Beni Parshad (P.M. 10) who deposed that Samey Singh was 42-43 years at the relevant time. Dr. Vishnu Kumar who performed the postmortem examination on the dead body of Samey Singh, stated his age to be 50/55 years with a margin of 5. years on either side Upon an overall view of the matter, the Tribunal rightly assessed the age of Samey Singh at 45 years. In awarding the compensation, the Tribunal deducted Rs. 25/- per month as the amount which Samey Singh would have spent on himself. His contribution to his dependents (applicants) was found out to be Rs. 125/- P.M. on the strength of the rulings of this Court mentioned in the judgment, it was held that Samey Singh could be expected to live upto about 70 years. Upon this data, the compensation was calculated as under:

Rs. 125/- P.M. x 20 years = Rs. 30,000/- Learned Counsel for the Appellants assailed the correctness of the mode adopted by the Tribunal on the strength of the Cooperative General Insurance Society Ltd. and Ors. v. Surjit Singh and Anr. 1973 P.L.R. 23 in which the Tribunal awarded over Rs. 14,000/- on account of compensation to the two claimants. The argument advanced and accepted by the learned Judge was that the lump sum assessed as compensation by the Tribunal should not carry interest more than the maintenance allowance awarded to the claimants. The attention of the learned Judge was drawn to monthly income scheme of the Bank of India, a scheduled Bank under which the deposit of Rs. 10,000/- with the Bank for any period more than 37 months fetched an interest at the rate of Rs. 62.50 per month. Applying the principle of capitalization of the monetary help, the learned Judge reduced the compensation to Rs. 10,000/-. It deserves mention that the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the claimants was dismissed by a division Bench of this Court vide Surjit Singh and Anr. v. The Cooperative General Insurance Society Ltd. 1974 P.L.R. 353 Following this precedent, I reduce the compensation from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. Out of this amount Rs. 10,000/- has already been paid to the applicants in this case. They are entitled to the remaining Rs. 5000/-. The decision of the Tribunal is accordingly modified and the appeal allowed to this extent. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this Court.