AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harbans Lal, J.—This appeal is directed against the order, dated 6th December, 1971 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Ludhiana (hereinafter to be called the Tribunal) where by compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded to the Respondents, the dependents of Jagir Singh deceased, against the Appellants M/s Maharaj Parshad Payara Lal, the owners of the truck and Harbhajan Singh, the driver of the truck. The appeal has been filed only by the owners of the truck.
The facts in brief are that on 9th April 1970 at about 3.30 p.m. Jagir Singh deceased had parked his rickshaw on the left side of the road in front of Vasdev Cloth Shop in Ludhiana city and he himself was standing in front of that shop. Oil Tanker PNH 2598, i.e. the truck in question, driven by Hirbhajan Singh Respondent came from the side of Domoriapul and hit against the rickshaw of Jagir Singh. As a consequence, the wheels of the rickshaw were smashed. Harbhajan Singh driver in his anxiety to escape, reversed the truck and tried to take the vehicle to the other road leading to the Courts. Jagir Singh deceased held the handle of the door of the truck and demanded compensation for the damage done to the wheels of his rickshaw, but Harbhjan Singh did not listen to him. Jagir Singh then ascended the ladder fixed on one side of the truck, but Harbhajan Singh instead of stopping the truck, speeded up the same, with the result that Jagir Singh fell down and was crushed under the left front wheel of the truck. Even then the truck was not stopped and was driven away at a fast speed by Harbhajan Singh. A police jeep came to the spot immediately thereafter and Jagir Singh was removed in that jeep to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where as a result of the injuries he died. Shanti Sarup P.W. 3, who was at that time proceeding to the bazar from his house, witnessed the occurrence and his name was also mentioned in the F.I.R. Parveen Sharma P.W. 2, who was returning to his house from his office, also happened to pass that way immediately after the incident and found Jagir Singh lying injured on the road.
The claim petition was filed by Mrs. Dhan Kaur, mother of the victim. Mrs. Bhagwan Kaur, his widow, Bachittar Singh, Balbir Singh, Santokh Singh and Gurcharan Singh minor sons and Sharanjit Kaur and Jasbir Kaur, his minor daughters, against the present Appellants, the owners of the truck, Harbhajan Singh driver and M/s Hindustan General Insurance Company Ltd., Calcutta, the insurer of the truck. The claim was resisted by the Respondents. According to the claimants, the fatal accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by Harbhajan Singh driver. An amount of Rs, 10,000/- was claimed as compensation. The Respondents controverted all the material allegations of the claimants. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:
Whether the accident, resulting into the death of Jagir Singh was due to wrongful act of i.e. rash or negligent driving of truck PNH 2598 by Harbhajan Singh Respondent?
Whether Shrimati Dhan Kaur is the mother, Shrimati Bhagwan Kaur is the widow, Bachittar Singh, Balbir Singh, Santokh Singh, Gurcharan Singh are the sons and Sharanjit Kaur and Jasbir Kaur and daughters of Jagir Singh?
To what amount the claimants are entitled by way of compensation and from whom?
Is the claim barred by time as against Respondent No. 3?
Whether truck PNH 2598 was insured with the Hindustan General Insurance Society-Respondent No. 3 on the date of accident and M/s Maharaj Parshad Payara Lal Respondent No. 1 were its owners or had then interest in it?
Relief.
Regarding issue No. 1, the Tribunal held that Jagir Singh had died as a result of rash and negligent driving by Harbhajan Singh, the driver of the truck. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the claimants and the claimants were held respectively to be the mother, widow, sons and daughters of Jagir Singh deceased. On issue No. 3 it was held that Jagir Singh was earning Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per month out of which he was spending about Rs. 100/- per month on himself and Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- per month were being spent for the maintenance of the claimants. The Tribunal also arrived at the conclusion that Jagir Singh was aged 55 years on the date of the fatal accident and as such the claimants were entitled to compensation for a period of 15 years at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. Thus, though the claimants were entitled to damages of Rs. 18,000/-, but as the claim had been made for Rs. 10.000/- only, it was allowed to the extent of that amount only. Issue No. 4 was also decided in favour of the claimants and it was held that the claim petition was within time. While deciding issue No. 5, the Tribunal held that M/s Maharaj Parshad Payara Lal, the present Appellants, were owners of the truck and were thus liable to pay compensation. So far as the insurance company was concerned, it was held that the truck was not insured. As a result of the above findings, the claim petition against the insurance company was dismissed, but the Appellants, as owners of the truck and Harbhajan Singh, as driver of the truck, were held liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the claimants Respondents with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and consequently the petition was allowed with costs against them.
The learned Counsel for the Appellants has challenged the order of the Tribunal on the sole ground that it is not proved that Jagir Singh rickshaw-puller died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by Harbhajan Singh driver. According to the learned Counsel, the only witness of the occurrence was Shanti Sarup P.W.3, who gave one version of the accident in the examination in chief and a contradictory version in the cross examination. In the examination in chief this witness stated that the left front wheel of the truck struck against Jagir Singh, whereas in cross-examination he stated that when the truck was moving at a slow speed Jagir Singh ascended the iron ladder fixed on the truck near the door of the front seat on its left side and demanded damages from the driver of the truck. There is no substance in this submission of the learned Counsel. The entire statement of the witness has to be read as a whole. If as a result of cross-examination some more details are brought on the record, the witness cannot be discredited for making contradictory statement. It the statement of this witness is read as a whole, it becomes clear that when the truck struck against the rickshaw at the time it was parked near a shop, the wheels of the rickshaw were damaged. The victim naturally was anxious to demand damages from the driver of the truck. But when the driver did not agree to pay the damages and tried to speed away the truck the deceased ascended the ladder fixed on one side of the truck. At that time the driver instead of stopping the truck turned the same to the other side and drove at a faster speed. As a result of this the deceased fell down and was trampled under the front wheel of the truck, sustained a number of injuries and as a consequence died in the hospital. When the driver of the truck was fully aware that the rickshaw-puller was standing on the ladder fixed on the truck it was his duty to stop the truck or to drive the same at a low speed and in such manner that Jagir Singh did not fall and there was no danger of accident. If the driver of the truck did not take the necessary precautions and if as a result of the action of the driver in turning the truck to another side and driving the same at a high speed, the accident occurred, the driver cannot escape the liability. The conclusion that a truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner has to be arrived at keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. In a particular situation the speed of the vehicle may be termed as slow, but the same speed in other circumstances may and can be held to amount to rash and negligent driving. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, I entirely agree with the conclusion of the learned Tribunal that Shanti Sarup P.W. 3 was a disinterested witness and had seen that occurrence and from his statement it is clear that Harbhajan Singh driver was guilty of rash and negligent driving which resulted in the tragic end of Jagir Singh.
It was contended at one stage by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that Jagir Singh deceased had no right to ascend the ladder fixed on the truck and that if he did so without the permission of the driver and as a consequence suffered injuries on account of fall from the said ladder, the driver cannot be held guilty. This contention cannot be accepted. When the rickshaw of Jagir Singh had been smashed by the truck, he had a right to demand damages from the driver of the truck and it was the duty of the latter to stop the truck and settle the matter with the rickshaw-puller. If in his anxiety to get damages from the driver of the truck, Jagir Singh ascended the ladder fixed on the truck, that does not absolved the driver of the truck from his liability, nor did the same provide any justification for the driver to drive away the truck at a high speed resulting in the fall of the victim.
Lastly it was contended that it was mentioned in the claim petition that the accident had occurred when Jagir Singh was plying the rickshaw. However, the averments in the claim petition have to be read in the light of the evidence brought on the record. As stated above, the statement of the eye-witness, Shanti Sarup P.W. 3, is quite cogent and convincing. His name was mentioned in the F.I.R. which was registered immediately after the occurrence.
For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with costs.