Parminder Singh vs Mnkatsar Janta Co-operative Transport Society Ltd.

M.R. Sharma, J.—F.A. Os.46,47,56 and 57 of 1969 arise out of the same accident and are being disposed of by one judgment.

On May 9, 1966, at about 2 P.M. Parminder Singh A.W.3 was going on scooter No. PNF: 3351, with Manohar Singh riding the pillion, from the house of one Gurdarshan Singh situated on Gaushala road inside Amritsari Gate of Ferozepore City to his own house, which was situated on the Mall, Ferozepore Cantonment. As soon as the scooter emerged from the Amritsari Gate and the driver took a turn towards the left side, it was hit by an oil tanker No. PNF7401 coming from the side of the Kasuri Gate and going towards the Bansi Gate side. It is alleged that the tanker lorry was being rashly driven by its driver Mr. Baldev Raj. Because of the impact, the scooter along with its two riders was pushed ahead for a considerable distance. Parminder Singh and Manohar Singh deceased fell into the Nala. Because of the impact made by the tanker, the parapet wall of the culvert on the side of the Nala was also demolished. Some of the by-standers took Paraminder Singh and Manohar Singh deceased out of the Nala and brought them to the Octroi Post. After about 15 minutes, a local bus happened to pass by. Manohar Singh and Paraminder Singh were carried in this bus to the hospital where Manohar Singh breathed his last. Baldev Raj, the driver of the tanker, disappeared from the place of the occurrence after the accident. The tanker belonged to the Mukatsar Janta Co-operative Transport Society (hereinafter called the Transport Society) and it was insured with the Jupiter General Insurance Company. Mrs. Bachittar Kaur, widow of Manohar Singh and her minor daughter Bibi Arvinder Kaur filed a claim application, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation on account of death by accident of Manohar Singh. Parminder Singh, who was injured in the same accident filed a separate claim application. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the scooter driver was negligent to an extent of 25 per cent and that Mrs. Bachittar Kaur and her minor daughter were entitled to have'' a sum of Rs. 22,950/- as compensation u/s 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act. Out of this amount, the liability of the Insurance Company was fixed at Rs. 10,952.50 along with costs. Parminder Singh applicant was granted a sum of Rs. 19,087/- as compensation. Out of this amount, the Insurance Company was ordered to pay Rs. 9047.50 plus the costs of the application. F A.O No. 46 of 1969 has been filed by Parminder Singh and F.A.O. No. 47 of 1969 has been filed by Mrs. Bachittar Kaur and her minor daughter. In these appeals enhanced compensation has been claimed. F.A. Os. Nos. 56 and 57 of 1969 have been filed by Mukatsar Janta Co-operative Transport Society in which it has challenged the award of compensation.

These appeals came up before me on September, 25, 1972, Mr. L. M. Suri the learned Counsel for the Transport Society, submitted before me that during the trial of these claim application, a learned Single Bench of the Court had taken the view that a decision rendered by the Criminal Court was binding on the Tribunal. Since Baldev Raj, the driver of the tanker, had been acquitted he bona fide formed an opinion that it was not necessary for him to lead some evidence. He prayed that the case may be remanded. This prayer was opposed on behalf of Parminder Singh and Mrs. Bachittar Kaur on the ground that the other side was prolonging the proceedings on one pretext or die other. Instead of remanding the case, I ordered that the Transport Society should be given one more opportunity to lead evidence in this Court. The Transport Society has examined two witnesses. They are Prakash Chand R.W. 8 and Manohar Lai R.W. 9. The learned Counsel for the applicants in F.A. Os. Nos. 56 and 57 of 1969 gave up Ishar Dass witness and closed his evidence.

Mr. L.M. Suri, the learned Counsel for the Transport Society, has taken me through the evidence and has argued that Parminder Singh A.W. 3 was himself negligent inasmuch as he did not hold a driving licence and was driving the scooter at a very fast speed. In particular, he has. drawn my attention to the statement made by A.W. 3 Parminder Singh in which he had stated that he had covered only 5/6 feet after emerging from the Amritsari Gate when the accident took place. According to the learned Counsel, it was the duty of Parminder Singh to apply brakes as soon as he saw the tanker coming. Since he failed to do so and the scooter banged into the tanker, the Transport Society could not be held liable for any compensation.

The first question which falls for determination is whether Paminder Singh can be regarded to have driven the scooter in a negligent manner merely because he did not possess a driving licence. He was a college-going student at the material time and it is in the evidence of Mr. Kewal Krishan A.W. 2 that he had been seeing Parminder Singh driving the scooter for the last three years or so. In the face of this statement, it cannot be said that Parminder Singh A.W. 3 was not well versed in driving a scooter. In Suleman Rahiman Mulani and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra 1968 A.C.J. 51 the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider a similar question. In that case a jeep driver was held guilty on an offence u/s 304-A Indian Penal Code. He was holding a learner''s licence and drove the jeep without any person having a driving licence by his side. He knocked down a pedestrian who succumbed to his injuries. The driver was convicted by the courts below by observing that the very fact that the accused had a learner''s licence showed that he had not attained proficiency in driving and therefore, could not control the vehicle. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the driver with these observations:

There is no presumption in law that a person who possesses only a learner''s licence or possesses no licence at all does not know driving. For various reasons, not excluding sheer indifference, he might not have taken a regular licence. The prosecution evidence that Appellant No. 1 had driven the jeep to various "places on the day previous to the occurrence is a proof of the fact that he knew driving. There was no basis for the conclusion that it was sheer stroke of good fortune that he did not meet with any accident on that day.

These observations apply with full force to the facts and circumstances of this case. Consequently, it cannot be held that because of the absence of a regular driving licence alone" negligence could be foisted on the shoulders of Parminder Singh A. W. 3.

Before adverting to the evidence led by the parties, I would like to discuss the site plan Exhibit A. W. 7/19 which was prepared by the investigating officer and produced in the criminal trial. A perusal of this plan shows that there were skid marks for a distance of about 10 feet from the place of the impact. At a distance of about 20 feet from the skid marks the tanker struck against the parapet wall of the Nala and dismantled it. Parminder Singh and Manohar Singh deceased were thrown into the Nala at this place. The presence of skid marks for a distance of about 10 feet shows that the tanker was being driven at a considerable speed. After the impact, the tanker dragged Parminder Singh and Manohar Singh deceased for a distance of about 20 feet. The dismantled parapet wall lies on the right side of the tanker. This shows that Baldev Raj R. W. 6, the driver of the truck, Gould not control the vehicle. Kewal Krishan A. W. 2, who is an eyewitness, has stated that the tanker was coming at a speed of 50/55 miles an hour without blowing a horn. It struck against the scooter, pushed its riders towards the Gaiida Nala, in which they fell, the tanker demolished the parapet wall of the Ganda Nala and its front wheels got suspended in it. The statement made by this witness is fully corroborated by Parminder Singh A. W. 3 and the circumstantial evidence already discussed. The burden of the evidence produced by the Respondent is that the tanker was coming at a speed of about 10/15 miles an hour and it was the scooter which struck against it. This part of the Respondent''s version does not appear to be plausible because if the scooter had struck against the tanker, in all probability it would have bounced back. The Respondent''s witness examined before the learned Tribunal have also stated that the parapet wall was broken because of the impact made by the scooter. To this extent, they are belied by the statements made by Parkash Chand R. W. 8 and Manohar Lal R. W. 9 in this behalf. Parkash Chand R. W. 8 has stated that the parapet wall of the culvert on the Nala was also broken with the impact of the tanker. Manohar Lai R. W. 9 has also made a similar statement. In the face of this evidence, it becomes abundantly clear that the tanker was being, driven by Baldev Raj R. W. 6 in a rash and negligent manner. The learned Tribunal inspected the spot and recorded an inspection note which shows that this ring or circular road, on which the tanker was plying, was 10 to 11 feet wide.

It is a matter of common knowledge that the width of the tanker-truck is about 8 feet. When a driver brings a tanker on a road of this dimension, he is expected to be doubly cautious. Besides, it is the duty of the driver to ensure the safety of the vehicles approaching the road from another road on his right side. Mr. Suri cannot derive any help from the statement made by Parminder Singh A. W. 3 to the effect that he saw the tanker when he had covered only 5/6 feet after emerging from the Amritsari Gate. The site plan shows that the gate was at distance of about 20 feet from the centre of the Circular Road. Parminder Singh has stated that he blew horn when he turned towards his left. In this situation the tanker must have been coming from behind at a great speed when it struck against the scooter.

The learned Tribunal held Parminder Singh negligent to the extent of 25 per cent mainly on the ground that it was his duty to have stopped, looked and let pass the vehicles which were going on the main road. As already indicated, when Parminder Singh appeared on the main road the tanker was probably behind him. Under these circumstances, it was open to him to turn the scooter on the left side as stated by him. In my considered opinion, it was not proper on the part of the learned Tribunal to hold that Parminder Singh was negligent to the extent of 25 per cent.

Coming now to the question of quantum of compensation, it may be stated that the learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that Manohar Singh was expected to contribute a sum of Rs. 150/-per month up to the age of 65 years towards the maintenance of his wife and daughter. In some cases, however, it has been held by this Court that the life expectancy of a healthy male should be taken as 70 years. In The Co-operative General Insurance Society and Ors. v. Surjtt Singh and Anr. F. A. O. No. 252 of 1971, decided on August 10,, 1972, I considered the question of awarding lump sum compensation to the heirs of the deceased victim of an accident. I took into consideration a scheme floated by the Bank of India which is a scheduled Bank. Under this scheme, if a person deposits Rs. 10,000/-with the Bank for any period more than a period of 37 months, the Bank promises to pay monthly interest at the rate of Rs. 62.50 from the date of the deposit. A sum of Rs. 24,000/-if deposited with this Bank would yield an income of Rs. 150/- per month to Mrs. Bachittar Kaur and her minor daughter for life. Besides, the capital amount will also belong to them. In the circumstances of the instant, case, it would be fit and proper to award a sum of Rs. 24,000/-to Mrs. Bachittar Kaur. and her minor daughter, I order accordingly.

In the case of Parminder Singh, the learned Tribunal on the basis of medical opinion has come to the conclusion that he has suffered a permanent disability to an extent of 30 per cent. He has, however, fixed his income at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month on the ground that he was a student of Arts. This figure in my opinion is quite meager. It is a matter of common knowledge that even a peon draws a monthly salary of about Rs. 170/-per month in these days. Under these circumstances, it would be fair and proper to fix his income at Rs. 320/- per month. On this basis, loss of his income comes to about Rs. 120/-per month. If a sum of Rs. 20,000''/-is awarded to him in cash as compensation, it would be possible for Parminder Singh to earn monthly interest at the rate of Rs. 125/-per month. This appears to be a reasonable figure and I enhance the compensation payable to Parminder Singh to Rs. 20,000/-. The enhanced compensation awarded in these appeals will be payable by the Transport Society.

In result, F. A. O. Nos. 46 and 47 of 1969 succeed to the extent indicated above and F. A. O. Nos. 56 and 57 of 1969 are dismissed. Since the compensation payable to Parminder Singh and Mrs. Bachittar Kaur has not been enhanced by a considerable amount, I leave the parties to bear their own costs in these appeals.