AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sodhi, J.—On October 20, 1982, at about 7.30 A.M. Ram Parkash Charge-man, Special Grade, of the Bhakra-Beas Management Board was going on his cycle on the road along the Bhakra canal when the but HPK-7224 came from behind and ran him over. Ram Parkash was killed at the spot as a result of the injuries sustained by him in this accident. According to the claimants, Ram Parkash, deceased, was traveling on his correct side of the road when the bus being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and knocked him down.
The version of the respondents, on the other hand, was that the cycle of the deceased, after striking a stone, lying on the road, fell towards the bus and the deceased struck against the left side of the bus and thus sustained injuries. It was denied that the accident had been caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus-driver.
It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident has been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus-driver. The conclusion warrants no interference in appeal.
The case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of P.W. 3 Mangat Ram, who deposed that he was returning to Jawabar Market when he saw Ram Parkash deceased, coming from the opposite direction on his cycle. The cycle was on the left side of the road when the bus came from behind and knocked him down. He then rushed to the scene and enquired about his condition and then removed him from under the bus to the Nangal Hospital. Jagan Nath, who was coming on his motorcycle from the same direction, was then deputed to inform the family members of Ram Parkash of this incident.
The case of the bus-driver, is, on the other hand, founded upon his own testimony, namely; that of R.W. 1, Des Raj, who deposed that there were two persons going ahead on their cycles. He crossed one of the cyclists and was crossing the other when this second cyclist, namely the deceased lost control when his cycle struck against a stone lying on the right side and hit the left side body of the bus and was thereby injured.
On the face of it, the statement of the bus-driver R.W. 1, Des Raj cannot be accepted as plausible, inasmuch as, he being the driver of the bus and thereby setting on the front right side of the bus, could not possibly have seen the deceased, who was on the left side of the road, falling and hitting into the left side of the bus. Further, the other significant fact here is that no other person has been examined to support the bus-driven on this point. There were admittedly many passengers in the bus when the accident occurred. None of them has been examined to corroborate this version of the accident. No exception can thus be taken to the finding of negligence recorded against the bus driver.
Turning now to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, the evidence on record shows that Ram Parkash deceased was about 50 years of age to the time of his death. He died leaving behind his widow-Kaushalya Devi, aged 40 and a son and two unmarried daughters who were all dependent upon him. Besides these children, there were two other sons and a married daughter, who do not figure as claimant as they were not dependent upon the deceased.
P.W. 2 Sita Ram, S.D.C. Transport and Haulage Sub-Division, Nangal deposed that the total emoluments of the deceased were over Rs. 1,500/- per month and on the date of his death, he had over ten years to go for his retirement. In such a situation, the Tribunal could have assessed the loss at a figure somewhat higher than Rs. 800/- per month, but in that case, it would have had to make an allowance for the fact that after his retirement, the earnings of the deceased would have been somewhat reduced. Taking however, an over-all view of the situation and circumstances of the deceased and the claimants who were dependent upon him, in the light of the principles Laid down by the full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 P.L.R. 1, the compensation awarded, namely; Rs. 1,55,000/- warrant no interference in appeal except to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to this amount with interest at the rate of (?) per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each shall be payable to Balbir Singh Sneh Lata and Santosh Kumari and the balance to Kaushalya Devi, the widow of the deceased. The bus-driver and owner shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.
In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed while the cross-objections are partly accepted. The claimants shall be entitled to their costs in these proceedings. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.