State of Punjab vs S.Pritam Singh

G.C. Garg, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated November 26, 1984, whereby respondents 1 and 2 have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,84,000/ for the death of their son Jaspal Singh who while driving car bearing registration No. PUK 6 died in a road accident with a Punjab Roadways bus.

The facts as emerge from the record are that on October 22, 1983, Jaspal Singh was driving Car No. PUK6 and was on his way from Moga to Chandigarh. Four other persons, namely, Smt. Dhan Kaur (PW1), Rajinder Singh (PW2), Lal Singh and Joginder Singh were also travelling in the said car. When the car reached near village Gharaun, a Punjab Roadways bus bearing registration No. PJA926 came from the opposite side at a very high speed and struck into the car in its right hand side. As a result of this ghastly accident, Jaspal Singh and Lal Singh died at the spot whereas Joginder Singh died later in the hospital. The car was completely damaged.

Though it is apparent from the record that as many as four separate claim petitions under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act were filed claiming different amounts of compensation by the respective claimants for the death of Jaspal Singh, Lal Singh and Joginder Singh, but this appeal relates to the case of Jaspal Singh only. On the claim petition filed by the parents of Jaspal Singh, it was alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Jaspal Singh who was aged 22 years at the time of accident was serving as a Director in the Chandigarh Paper Board Mills Limited. He was also a partner of M/s. New Allied Capital Industries, Chandigarh. He was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/ per month from the aforesaid sources. He had wide experience in the manufacture of paper and paper boards and thus, had a very bright future. The claimantsrespondents 1 and 2, herein, were wholly dependent upon him, who claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,65,000/ i.e. rupees ten lacs for the death of Jaspal Singh, rupees 50,000/ on account of damages to the car and Rs. 15,000/ under section 92A of the Act. It was also alleged by the claimants that they being the legal representatives of the deceased, were entitled to compensation from the appellants, the owners of the bus and respondents No. 3 Jagir Singh, its driver.

The stand taken by the appellants and respondent No. 3, the driver before the Tribunal was that the bus was being driven at a normal speed but suddenly right front wheel of the bus burst and the bus could not be controlled which struck against the car coming from the opposite side with a very high speed. According to the respondents, the accident had taken place due to mechanical defect, bursting of tyre and rash and negligent driving of the car. After going through the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:

Whether the accident in question in which Jaspal Singh sustained fatal injuries was caused by rash and negligent driving of bus No. PJA926 by its driver respondent No. 3 Jagir Singh, as alleged ? OPP

Whether the claimants are legal representatives of the deceased ? If so, to what amount of compensation, are they entitled and from whom ? OPP.

Relief.

After considering the entire evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal found that the only conclusion that could be arrived is that the accident in question was the result of rash and negligent driving of bus No. PJA926 by its driver Jagir Singh respondent No. 3. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/ was awarded as compensation to respondents 1 and 2, the parents of Jaspal Singh, by taking monthly dependency at Rs. 2000/ and applying a multiplier of sixteen.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to challenge the finding under issue No. 1 is that the accident did not take place due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and it was only Jaspal Singh who at the relevant time was driving the car, with the whose rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place. According to the learned counsel, the bus was being driven at a normal speed and all of a sudden the right front wheel of the bus got punctured and burst. Consequently, the bus turned towards its right hand side and struck against the car coming at a very high speed. The learned counsel further contended that the person on the steering of the car got confused and could not control the car as a result of which the accident occurred. The contention of the learned counsel has no merit. I have myself perused the entire evidence on the record. Though a specific stand has been taken by the respondent No. 3 in his written reply that the car in question was in the middle of the road and the bus driven by him was running at a very low speed at the time of accident, but there is not an iota of evidence to support this version. To prove as to of whose negligence the accident took place, there are three age witnesses, namely Dhan Kaur PW 1, Rajinder Singh PW 2 and Harnek Singh PW 3. Dhan Kaur PW 1 who at the relevant time was travelling in the car deposed that she had slept at the time of accident. Therefore, her testimony is of no use to prove the negligence. Rajinder Singh PW 2 the other occupant of the car was sitting by the side of Jaspal Sigh (deceased) on the front seat. Harnek Singh PW 3 is a passerby who at the relevant time was passing by the site of the accident on a cycle. On the other hand, to disprove the version as put forth in the claim petition is the solitary statement of RW 1 Jagir Singh, the driver of the bus whose testimony in the absence of any other evidence, what to talk of cogent and corroborative evidence, can easily be termed as self serving statement. The primary defence taken on behalf of the respondents is that it was only due to bursting of front right tube and tyer of the bus that the person driving the car got confused and lost control of the car resulting in the accident. A fishing look at the evidence led by the parties goes to show that the version introduced by the respondents is not true. Rajinder Singh PW 2 one of the occupants of the car and Harnek Singh PW 3, the eye witness to the accident, have categorically denied the suggestion that the tyre of the bus was punctured and the bus had gone out of control as a result thereof. It has come in evidence of Rajinder Singh PW 2 that there were some passengers in the bus. But not even a single passenger has been examined by the respondents to support the version of bursting of the tyre. More so, even the conductor of the bus did not step into the witness box to corroborate the version of the driver, who is the employee of the respondentdepartment and was inevitably present in the bus. Moreover, it is specifically stated by respondent No. 3 in his written statement that at the relevant time the bus was running in the middle of the road and while appearing as PW 1, Jagir Singh, respondent No. 3 stated that when he reached near village Gharaun, the front right wheel of the bus burst and the bus could not be controlled and that the bus swerved towards right, as a result of which struck against the car. It has also been stated by the driver of the bus in his statement that he was driving the bus at the speed of 50/55 kms. If for the sake of argument, the version of the driver of the bus is taken to be true, it does not appeal to any reason that the right front corner of the bus would have hit the car as the bus would have swerved extremely towards its right hand side and would have struck its left front portion with the left front portion of the car. Taking all these circumstances together, no exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus in which three persons lost their lives. The photographs of the accident available on record also do not show that the right front tyre of the bus was in a deflated condition.

As regards the challenge on the ground that the claimants, respondents 1 and 2 are not the legal representatives of Jaspal Singh deceased and they were not dependent on the deceased, Pritam Singh respondent No. 1 while appearing as PW 7 before the Tribunal has categorically stated that Gurdip Singh respondent No. 2 is the mother of Jaspal Singh and Jaspal Singh was their son. He specifically stated that he and his wife Gurdip Kaur were wholly dependent upon their son. There is no evidence to contradict or falsify this Act. Hence, the challenge on these grounds is bound to fail.

Adverting to the quantum of the compensation, suffice it to say, that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is quite reasonable and no reduction therefrom is called for. It has come in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the claimants that Jaspal Singh deceased at the time of the accident was aged 24 years and his father and mother were aged 56 and 52 years respectively. As a matter of fact, this factum could not easily be and in fact has not been disputed by the respondents, either in their written statement or otherwise. Jaspal Singh deceased at the relevant time was working as a Director of Chandigarh Paper Board Mills and he was also a partner of M/s. New Allied Capital Industries, Chandigarh. From this, he was in all earning Rs. 10,000/ per month and apparently had a very bright future. Undisputedly, the deceased was still unmarried. Learned Tribunal after considering the entire evidence and making calculations assessed the dependency of the claimants on their no Jaspal Singh deceased at Rs. 2,000/ per month and applying a multiplier of 16, has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/ to the claimants along with interest and costs. There can be no logic to impose any cut in the amount of dependency assessed by the learned Tribunal keeping in the view the overwhelming and unshaken evidence led by the claimants on this question. In the circumstances, no interference is called for in the finding of the learned Tribunal on the issue of quantum of compensation awarded.

As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.