AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sodhi, J.—Several passengers were killed and many injured when a head-on collision took place between the Haryana Roadways bus HRC 6218 and the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation bus RSG 3226. This happened on April 23, 1977 at about 8 p.m. on the Delhi-Jaipur Highway near Dharu Hera. Included amongst the dead were Avtar Singh Anand, Balbir Singh, Moti Ram and Gurdeep Singh Kumar as also the drivers of the two buses involved in the accident''.
It was the finding of the Tribunal that this was a case of composite negligence with both the bus drivers being at fault. The Haryana Roadways bus was, however, held to be somewhat more to blame as it was being driven with only one of its headlights working and consequently its liability was fixed at 60 per cent with 40 per cent being that of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation bus. A sum of Rs. 1,14,240/- was awarded as compensation to the parents, widow and two daughters of Avtar Singh Anand deceased; Rs. 10,000/- to the widow and minor children of Balbir Singh deceased; Rs. 35,700/- to the widow and minor children of Moti Ram deceased and Rs. 1,22,400/-to the claimants in the case of Gurdeep Singh Kumar deceased, they being his widow and three minor children.
The finding recorded on the issue of negligence warrants no interference in appeal. It was the common case of the parties that the accident did indeed take place between these two buses coming from opposite directions. There was, of course, an attempt on the part of the owners of the two buses to blame the other for the accident, but the manner and circumstances in which it occurred, provides no occasion for holding otherwise than as found by the Tribunal, namely, that the accident was caused by the composite negligence of the drivers of the two buses.
It is pertinent to note that the accident occurred on a straight road. There is no suggestion that there was any other traffic on the road which in any manner played any role in this accident. Further, according to PW 13 Sheo Lal Chaukidar who lodged the first information report, in this case, the road was wide enough to permit two vehicles to pass. Negligence in this situation is writ large. The testimony of PW 7 U.N. Mangal and PW 18 Sharad Parkash who were travelling in the bus RSG 3226 clearly shows that both the buses were coming at a fast speed and neither gave way to the other. These two witnesses cannot but be held to be wholly disinterested and independent witnesses. Corroboration to their version is provided by PW 13 Sheo Lal Chaukidar as also PW 17 Sheo Narain. RW 1 Balbir Singh, the conductor of the Haryana Roadways bus, no doubt tried to throw the blame for the accident on the other bus on the plea that his bus was travelling at a slow speed on its correct side of the road, but the Tribunal rightly discarded his testimony as being that of one highly interested. RW 5 Pawan Dass, the one witness examined, in an effort to throw the blame for the accident wholly upon the Haryana Roadways bus, was clearly of no avail, in this respect. As for testimony of three officials of the Rajasthan Government who purported to enquire into the accident, namely, RW 2 J.A. Alvi; RW 3 P.R. Subramaniam and RW 4 Raghbir Singh, it cannot on the face of it be treated as of any consequence, in that, they were neither eyewitnesses to the occurrence nor did they examine any such persons in the enquiry held by them. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that the Tribunal rightly held both the bus drivers to blame for the accident and considering that the Haryana Roadways bus was being driven with only one of its headlights on, the Tribunal rightly held it to be more to blame. The finding on the issue of negligence must thus be upheld and affirmed.
Turning to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, no exception can be taken to the award of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the widow and minor children of Balbir Singh deceased. The evidence on record would show that Balbir Singh was only about 47 years of age at the time of his death and was employed at a salary of over Rs. 600/- per month. This amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) is clearly far less than what the claimants were really entitled to, according to the well established principles of computation of compensation in such cases. This was, however, the sum claimed. No question of any reduction here, therefore, arises.
Where the Tribunal fell in error was in the case of Mod Ram deceased. There was no warrant for denying the claimants the compensation claimed which was Rs. 50,000/-, the claimants being his young widow and four minor children who were all dependent upon him. Moti Ram deceased was only 32 years of age at the time of his death. He owned a tea shop which provided him his means of livelihood. On the finding of the Tribunal itself, the dependency of the claimants here was Rs. 3,000/-per annum. Considering the circumstances of the claimants and the deceased ''16'' would clearly be the appropriate multiplier to be applied. So computed, the compensation payable would work out to Rs. 48,000/-, which will be rounded off to Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand only).
As regards the case of Gurdeep Singh Kumar deceased, a reading of the testimony of PW 9 K.C. Chaudhry, Deputy Director, Evaluation Organization, Rajasthan, would show that the deceased held the post of Deputy Director in the Organization and his total emoluments were Rs. 1,640/- per month. He was only 40 years of age at the time of his death and he died leaving behind his widow and three minor children. There is clearly no warrant for reducing the figure of dependency as found by the Tribunal which was at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per mensem. Considering the situation of the claimants and the deceased, in the context of the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 (P&H), ''16'' would clearly be the appropriate multiplier to be applied here and computed at this rate, the compensation payable would work out to Rs. 1.92,000/- (Rs. one lac and ninety-two thousand only). The award in this case has, however, to be limited to Rs. 1,50,000/- which was the amount claimed.
Finally, there is the case relating to Avtar Singh Anand deceased. At the time of his death, he was the Divisional Manager of the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company at Kanpur. His emoluments and deduction at the time of his death were as shown in the chart exhibit PW 8/1 which was prepared and proved by AW 8 H.S. Karial, Assistant Administrative Officer of the Northern Regional Office of the insurance company. The claimants in this case are the widow, two daughters and the aged parents of the deceased. It would be relevant to note that the father of the deceased was 92 years of age while his mother was 88 years old and according to the counsel for the claimants, they were still alive. It is clear, therefore, that there is a history of longevity in the family. Considering the circumstances and situation of the claimants and the deceased, keeping in view also the aspect of longevity in the family and the fact that being engaged in insurance work, the deceased could be expected to have continued working in this line even after his retirement from service, ''15'' deserves to be taken as the appropriate multiplier. There is no warrant for interfering with the figure of dependency as determined by the Tribunal, namely, Rs. 1,400/-per month. So calculated this figure would work out to Rs. 2,52,000/- (Rs. two lacs and fifty-two thousand only).
The compensation payable to the claimants in the case of Avtar Singh Anand deceased is consequently hereby enhanced to Rs. 2,52,000/-. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 30,000/-each shall be payable to the parents and the two daughters of the deceased and the balance to his widow.
In the case of Gurdeep Singh Kumar deceased, the compensation payable to the claimants is enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each shall be paid to the children of the deceased and the balance to his widow and in the case of Moti Ram deceased, the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- each shall be paid to his children and the balance to his widow. The claimants shall be entitled to the amount awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded. The amount payable to the minor claimants shall be paid to them in such manner as the Tribunal may deem to be in their best interest.
The Respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to the claimants for the compensation awarded, but shall be entitled to ratable contribution inter se as per their liability as determined by the Tribunal.
In the result, the appeals filed by the claimants, Tirath Kaur Anand, Gurdeep Kaur and others, as also the cross-objections filed by the claimants in the case of Moti Ram deceased, are hereby accepted while the appeals filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation are hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.