Kusum Jalali and another vs Megh Raj and others

Rajendar Nath Mittal, J.—This judgment will dispose of F. A O No s 306 and 320 of 1971 which arise out of the same judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisaar.

Briefly, the facts are that on January, 8 1969 at about 12-30 P. M. Dr A K. Jalali, aged 31 years, was proceeding from Farm gate of the Punjab Agricultural University to the University Gate which are opposite each other. Balsmand Hissar Road runs between the gates. When he was on that road a bus belonging to Haryana Roadways Depot, Rohtak, came from the side of Balsmand and hit Dr. Jalali. He fell down at some distance from the place of occurrence. He was removed to the Hospital in the campus, of the University, now named as Haryana Agricultural University and was treated by Dr Sharma. He however, succumbed to the injuries on January 10, 1969

Kusum Jalali, the wife, and Miss Gurdrun Jalali, minor daughter of the deceased filed a claim application for compansation against the state of Haryana and Megh Raj, driver of the bus, inter alia on the ground that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The application was contested by the Respondents who pleaded that the deceased was resoonsible for the accident as he was not holding a licence and was driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently. Some other pleas were taken which do not survive for decision of this appeal

The learned tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus as well as deceased was responsible for the accident to the extent of 40% to 60% respectively. He further held that the claimants suffered a total loss of Rs. 2,34,600/-. He consquently granted to the elaimants Rs. 97, 408/-, after allowing certain other deductions Two appeals have been filed against the order one by the claiments and the other by the State of Haryana which have been numbered as F. A. O. Nos 306 and 320, respectively

The first question that arises for determination is as to who was responsible for the accident Mr. Lakhanpal learned Counsel for the claimants has vehemently argued that the accident lock place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. He has taken me through the evidence of the witness On the other hand, Mr. U. D Gaur, learned Advocate General, Haryana, has argued that it was the duty of the deceased to cross the road after having become sure that no vehicle was coming from either direction He urges that in the aforesaid situation it cannot be held that the driver was negligent in driving the bus.

I have given due consideration to the argument of the learned Counsel. The admitted facts are that the gates of the Farm and Agricultural University are situated opposite to each other. The deceased was coming from the Farm and proceeding towards the Agricultural University Balsmand Hissar Road paeses between the two gates. Though the place where he was crossing was not a road intersection within the meaning of the word as used in 10th Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, but it, for person crossing the road from one gate to the other was nothing short of that. When the deceased was crossing the road it was his duty to take the precaution as provided in regulation 7 considering the Balamand Hissar Road as a main road He before entering the road should have ensured that no vehicle from either side was approaching the point from which he had to cross. It is evident from the evidence that he did not do so. On the other hand he came out from the gate of the Farm at some speed and without looking on either side straight away moved towards the gate of the Agricultural University. He a so did not hold license for driving. While he started learning driving, be should have also followed the instructions provided in the Act He failed to do so as well. There is also reliable evidence that the drier of the Bus was negligent. C. R. Kaushak deposed that the driver was driving the bus at a high speed. There are no grounds to disbelieve his statement. The driver had been driving the buses on this road since long and knew that the University and the Farm ware situated on it. He should have been cautious while approaching the gate of the University, where he could and many persons crossing the road. It appears that be overlooked this fact and did not drop the speed, which he ought to have done. In view of the afore said circumstances, I am of the view that the finding of the learned Tribunal that both were negligent is correct and there is no scops for interference with the same.

The learned Tribunal approtioned the negligence of the deceased and the driver to the extant of 40% and 60% respectively, but in my view the ratio has not been properly fixed. The deceased was more negligent. Firstly, be without taking proper precautions entered the road, from a side, on which buses and heavy vehicles passed. As already observed above, he should have been more cautious while crossing the road Secondly, he did not hold the licence for driving in the circumstances, I am of the opinion that his negligence was more than that of the driver. Consequently, 1 hold that he was negligent to the extent of 2/3rd and the driver to the extent of 1/3rd.

Now I advert to the question of damages. The deceased according to J. C Sharma A W 4, was drawing Rs. 1,097 . I have rounded his figure to Rs. 1,100/-. Thus his income comes to Rs. 13,200 / per year. He was liable to pay income tax and was paying Rs. 1,200/- at tax- After deduction of income tax his income comes to Rs. 12,000/. Out of that, I allow a deduction of Rs. 3,000/-for his persons expenses. The balance amount namely, Rs. 800/- he was spending on his dependents. The deceased was 31 years of age at the time of the death. Taking into consideration his age and other circumstances I fix 14 as a suitable multiplier. Thus the dependants have suffered a total loss of Rs. 2,3000(sic)-. As the deceased contributed to the accident to the extent of 2/3rd, his depedents will be entitled to 1/3rd of the total amount which comes to Rs. 37,3000 (the figures has been rounded) Thus the claimants are entitled to Rs. 3,000/

For the aforesaid reasons I partly accept F.A.O No 320 of 1971 and reduce the compensation amount of the claimants from Rs. 97,40 / to Rs. 37,300/. F.A.O, No. 306 of 1971, is however, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.