State of Haryana and Others vs Smt. Uma sharma and Another

S.S. Sodhi, J.—On November 13, 1972 at about 9 AM there was an accident between a bus and a motor cycle proceeding in opposite directions on Rohtak Delhi Road near Village Rohad. Mr. K.K. Sharma and Mr. M.M. Sharma, the two persons travelling on the motor cycle were both killed.

Mr. K.K. Sharma was a member of the Indian Revenue Service. He was posted as Under Secretary in the Central Government at the time of his death. He was then 32 years of age. Mr. M.M. Sharma, on the other hand was a student aged 19 years.

Two separate applications were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased seeking compensation for the loss accruing to them on account of this accident.

It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident here took place entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The claimants in the case of Mr K.K. Sharma, deceased, they being his young widow and four minor children was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation while in the other case the parents and brother of Mr. M.M. Sharma, deceased, were awarded a sum of Rs 10 000/- as compensation.

In appeal it was in the first instance sought to be contended that the accident here had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and not of the bus driver. The argument being that the accident had taken, place at a point where there was a curve on the road. The Motor Cycle was proceeding at a fast speed and went on to the wrong side of the road and hit into the bus.

A reading if the evidence on record shows that no suggestion even was made to the three eye witnesses to the accident examined by the claimants to the effect that it was the motor cycle which had gone to the wrong side of the road. It was only the Respondent bus driver RW 2 Kartar Singh who made a statement to this effect.

The two eye witnesses examined by the claimants namely A.W. 8 Dharam Singh and AW9 Assa Ram, both deposed to their presence at the time of the accident and it is pertinent to note that their statements were recorded by the police and what is more they were both examined as witnesses in the criminal case filed against the bus driver with regard to this accident. Counsel could point to no material on record to suggest any reason or motive for either of these witnesses to depose falsely in this case. The only discrepancy pointed out was that while one had stated that they were sitting on the cot when they saw the accident and the other had said that they were sitting on the ground. This is a very minor infirmity which in the case of persons coming to give evidence many months after the incident cannot but be treated as a matter of no consequence.

Turning to the two witnesses examined on behalf of the State of Haryana. there is at the first instance RW 1 Wishwa Nath, who deposed that he was traveling in the bus at the time of the accident It, was for the first time in the Court that he came forth to depose to this accident. He was not examined by the police or even in the criminal court. What is more, he gave the date of the accident as November 11, 1972 whereas the accident had in fact taken place two days later.

As regards the bus driver RW2 Kartar Singh. It makes interesting reading to note that in the criminal case he had taken up the defense that he was not the driver of the bus at the time of the accident. Such a witness is clearly pot entitled to any reliance and the Tribunal rightly did not accept his testimony.

For the foregoing reasons the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence warrants no interference in Appeal.

The next question which arises in this appeal is with regard to the amount payable as compensation. The general principles governing the computation of compensation in such cases are those as laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur (1979) 81 P.L. R. 1, keeping these principles in mind, taking up the case of Mr. K.K. Sharma, it will be seen that according to the evidence on record his total emoluments at the time of his death were Rs. 1354/- Being a member of the Indian Revenue Service and considering his age, it is reasonable to assume that had he lived, there would have been further advancement for him in his career. The other factor which deserves notice is the facilities which are normally available to government servants like those of subsidised bousing and free medical aid. Some allowance is of course to be made in the amount which the deceased would have spent upon himself during his life time. All things considered, it would be just and reasonable to take the loss to be at the rate of Rs. 1100/- per month with a multiplier of 16. So computed, compensation payable to the claimants would work out to be Rs. 2, 11,200/-, This is the amount that the claimants here are hereby awarded. Out of the amount awarded a sum of Rs. 25000/- each shall be paid to the four minor children. This amount shall be paid to them in such manner as the Tribunal may deem to be in their best interest.

In the other case relating to Mr. M. M Sharma, deceased, the amount awarded was only 10,000/-. There is no evidence on record regarding the age of the claimants, but judging it from that of the deceased and keeping in view generally the principles relevant for assessing compensation in such a case, it would be reasonable to take Rs. 100/- per month as the loss suffered by the claimants for a period of 10 years. So computed, the claimants here must be held entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,000/- at compensation.

In the result the widow and four minor children of Mr. K.K. Sharma, deceased, are hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 2, 11,200/- as compensation in terms as mentioned above while on the other hand the parents and brother of Mr. M M. Sharma are hereby awarded a sum of Rs 12.000/-. The amounts awarded as compensation in both these cases shall be payable to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of the application to the date of payment of the amount awarded.

In the result both the appeals filed by the state of Haryana hereby dismissed, while the cross objections filed by the claimants are accepted. The claimants shall be entitled to the costs of both the appeals as also the cross-objections. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/- (One set only)