State of Punjab and Another vs Smt. Sushila Devi and Others

M.S. Liberhan, J.—Briefly the facts are that on 28-4-1981. Harbans Singh was going on his auto-cycle on the dividing road of Sector 28-A and 27-B, Chandigarh. He was on the left side of the road when bus No. PUR 4974 driven by Randhir Singh came at a very high speed and struck on the rear portion of the deceased''s auto-cycle, which resulted in the death of the deceased on the spot. The claimants widow, two sons and two daughters claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of compensation. The driver did not contest the allegations nor filed any written statement. However, the respondents No.2 and 3 controverted the allegations for want of knowledge. The death of Harbans Singh on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver was denied. All the facts were controverted. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the occular testimony of P.W.5 Hardip Singh and P.W.6 Bula Singh came to the conclusion that the death had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by Randhir Singh driver. The learned Counsel for the appellant challenged the said finding on the ground that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the discrepancies in the statements of P.W.5 Hardip Singh and P.W.6 Bula Singh, who were admittedly the eye witnesses. The discrepancy pointed out is that P.W.5 Hardip Singh deposed that he was going on the left side of the road at a distance of 7/8 yards while P.W.6 Buta Singh deposed in his cross-examination that the auto-cycle of the deceased was about 60/70 yards ahead of the bus on the left side of the road. I feel that such a minor discrepancy as pointed out by the learned Advocate General, is bound to occur in the statements of the truthful witnesses. It depends upon capacity to observe and to judge distances which varies from person to person but their testimony cannot disbelieved on this account. No other error has been pointed out to take a different view than that taken by the learned Tribunal, with respect to the rash and negligent act of appellant driver which resulted in the death of the deceased Harbans Singh.

I further find support for the above said conclusion from the additional factor that the bus struck against the deceased''s auto-cycle from behind. The version given by the eye witnesses further find corroboration on all the material points from the statement of the driver. Resultanlly, I confirm the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal, who had an opportunity to see the demeanour of the witness also, that the death was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Randhir Singh respondent.

The learned Tribunal found that the deceased was earning about Rs. 1,000/- per month. The learned Counsel for the state has no quarrel with the said finding. He however states that the learned Tribunal was not reasonable in holding that the deceased was retaining only Rs. 300/- per month as his pocket expenses. In his view it should have been Rs. 500/- per month but no reason worth noticing has been advanced to contend so. I find no error in the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal with respect to the annual dependency of the claimants to the tune of Rs. 8,400/- per year. The multiplier adopted has not been challenged. I, therefore, confirm the finding with respect to an amount of Rs. 1,17,600/-awarded by the Tribunal as compensation. Other the respondent shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till payment. I, therefore, find no force in this appeal and dismiss the same with above observations. No order as to costs.