Hoshiarpur National Transporters Pvt. Ltd. vs The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Others

S.P. Goyal, J.—This judgment will dispose of two cross-appeals (F.A.O. Nos. 4 and 33 of 1975) filed against the same judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as the Claims Tribunal) dated July 31, 1974 where by the claims filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, namely, the widow, son and daughter, were allowed in the amount of Rs. 1,04,800/-.

Messrs Hoshiarpur National Transporters Ltd., have filed F.A.O. No. 4 of 1975 for setting aside the said judgment whereas the legal representatives have filed the other appeal (F.A O. No. 33 of 1975) for enhancement of the compensation to rupees five lacs.

The accident which resulted in the death of Dharam Singh, the husband of Maya Devi and father of the two other claimants, took place on July 15, 1969 at 12.15 p.m. on the Jullundur?Pathankot road near the Power House where the bye-pass of Tanda Urmar joins the said road. The deceased was coming from Jammu and proceeding towards Rohtak in his own car. While he was approaching the part of the road where the bye-pass of Tanda Urmar joins the main toad, bus No. PNH-3326 driven by Natha Singh and belonging to Messrs Hoshiarpur National Transporters entered from the bye-pass on the main road. When it took turn to its right, the left bumper of the car struck the right side of the bus near the driver seat. The legal representatives filed the claim alleging that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus by Natha Singh, driver. The claim was opposed by the Respondents, namely, the company owning the bus, the driver and the insurance company who all controverted the allegations made in the claim petition and averred that the accident was caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased. The Claims Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties, accepted the claim and granted an award in the amount of 1,04,800/- which led to the filing of these two appeals as noticed above.

There is no dispute that the accident took place as narrated above. The learned Counsel for the Appellant-company also could not dispute that the driver of the bus was negligent in as much as he violated the provisions of Regulation 6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the ''Schedule'') while entering upon Jullundur-Pathankot G. T. Road which no doubt was the main road. Regulation 6 of the Schedule provides that the driver of motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection, road junction or road corner and shall not enter upon any such intersection or junction until he becomes aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of the person thereon. The bus driver, therefore, was duty-bond to stop before entering the road junction and wait till the traffic on the main road was clear and he could enter the main road without endangering the safety of any person theron. No fault, therefore, can be found with the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the accident took place because of the negligence of the bus driver. However, the learned Counsel for the Appellant-company contended that the driver of the car was equally negligent and responsible in causing the accident. The argument raised was that the driver of the car was also duty bound to slow down while approaching the road junction and by not doing so, he also violated the provisions of Regulation 6 of the Schedule and was, therefore, guilty of negligent driving. Reliance for this contention was placed on the statement of Karam Singh, A. W. 5, who deposed that the car was running at a speed of 60 kilometers per hour when the accident took place. Even if this statement be accepted at its face-value, it cannot be said that the speed of 60 kilometer per hour on the main road was such a high speed which could warrant a finding that the deceased had not slowed down the speed of his car prior to its collision with the bus. That apart, from a close reading of the provisions of Regulation 6 of the Schedule, I am of the view that no duty is cast on the driver running on the main road to slow down his vehicle. On the other hand, a duty is cast on the driver of the motor vehicle who approaches the road intersection or road junction to slow down while entering the same. In case of road junction, the driver of the motor vehicle running on the main road would not be approaching the junction at any point unless he takes a turn and enters the side road. The word, ''junction'' according to the dictionary meaning means a place or point of union, which in case of the T-junction would only be where the side road joins the main road. It is, therefore, obvious that it is only the driver of the vehicle running on the side road who would be approaching the junction while entering upon the main road. Consequently, the driver of the car could not be held guilty of negligent driving for violating the provisions of Regulation 6 of the Schedule even if it may be held that he had not slowed down the speed of his car while approaching the T-Junction.

On the question of just compensation, the amount of pecuniary loss assessed by the Claims Tribunal was not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant-company. He, however, urged that according to the statement of Mrs. Maya Devi, after the death of her husband, she received an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and this amount should have been debited towards the pecuniary loss assessed by the Claims Tribunal.

From the perusal of the record, I find that no attempt was made by either of the parties to prove as to on what count the legal representatives of the deceased received the said amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. I, therefore, directed the widow of the deceased to file a detailed affidavit showing the various amounts. From the affidavit furnished by her it is disclosed that the total amount received by the heirs of the deceased was Rs. 1,46,262.90. Out of this amount, Rs. 22,548/- were lying deposed in the Saving Fund Accounts in various banks and Rs. 9,806/- in fixed deposit. The amount of Rs. 1,000/- was received on account of the value of 12 years National Saving Certificate and the remaining amount was of the gratuity, provident fund and insurance money. The amounts received on account of gratuity, provident fund or insurance money as held in Damyanti Devi and Ors. v. Sita Devi and Ors. 1972 A.C.J. 334, are not be taken into account while assessing the pecuniary loss. The remaining amount of Rs. 33,754/-could not also be deducted out of the pecuniary loss assessed by the Claims Tribunal. But only the benefit which has accrued to the heirs of the deceased because of accelerated succession in respect of this amount can be taken into account. The annual loss to the dependents and to the estate of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 15,600/- by the Claims Tribunal and this amount is not disputed by either of the parties. The benefit which accrued from the acceleration of succession if counted at the rate 7 1/2 percent interest on the amount of Rs. 33,754/- would come to Rs. 2,600/- per annum. If this amount is deducted from the amount of annual loss, the net annual loss would come to Rs. 13,000/-. The deceased at the time of his death was 41 years of age and after taking into consideration all the imponderables as enumerated in the recent Full Bench case of this Court in Lachman Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Kaur and Ors. 1979 A.C.J. 170, I think a fair compensation can be assessed by applying ten years'' purchase factor to this basic dependency figure and thus assessed, the amount would come to Rs. 1,30,000/-.

In view of the above finding, F.A.O. No. 4 of 1975 filed by the Appellant-company is dismissed and the appeal (F.A.O. No. 33 of 1975) filed by the Respondents is allowed to the extent that the amount of compensation is enhanced from 1,04,600/-to Rs. 1 30,000/-.