Union of India (UOI) vs Darshan Singh and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—This order will dispose of both, the appeal referred to above as also the cross-objection filed by the claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation.

The accident in this case took place on 18.7.72 at about 11.30 p.m. on the G.T. Road, between Jullundur and Ludhiana. A military truck

coming from the side of Ludhiana while overtaking another truck, hit into a jeep coming from the opposite direction. The deceased in this case,

Kamaljit Singh, aged 23, was the driver of the jeep who was killed in this accident. The claim for compensation arising from his death was filed by

his father, Darshan Singh.

The learned Tribunal came to the finding that the accident in this case took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the military truck and

consequently awarded the claimant Darshan Singh Rs. 14,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of the death of his son. It

is this award which is now sought to be challenged in appeal.

There is clearly no warrant for interfering'' with either the finding of the Tribunal on the point of negligence of the truck-driver or with the amount

awarded as compensation in this case.

As has been mentioned above, it was the case of the claimant that the accident between the military truck and the jeep took place while the

military truck was trying to overtake another truck proceeding in the same direction. Seeing this, the driver of the jeep coming from the opposite

direction took the jeep to the extreme left on the kacha portion of the road, but on account of the rash and negligent driving of the military truck,

the truck hit into the jeep resulting in the death of the driver of the jeep.

On the point of negligence, the claimant examined A.W. 4 Harivansh Mehta who was travelling in the jeep at the time of the accident. In his

testimony, he put forth the version as given above. Learned Counsel for the Appellant could not point out any flaw in his testimony to create any

doubt therein. The other witness examined in this case was A.W. 3 Joginder Singh who was also travelling in this jeep at the time of the accident

but his evidence has to be disregarded on account of the fact that his cross-examination had been deferred and he was not put in the witness box

thereafter.

In dealing with the case of the Respondents on the issue of negligence, it deserves to be noted at the very outset that no counter version of the

accident was put forth by them. It was merely denied that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the truck-driver. The matter

is clinched by the testimony of the truck-driver himself R.W. 1 Abrahim who stated that the accident took place when he was overtaking another

truck going ahead and at the time of the accident, his truck was on the right side of the road. He no doubt tried to change his statement later on by

stating that his truck was in the centre of the road at the time of the accident and that the jeep had been coming from the opposite direction at a fast

speed but he did not even allege that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep in the accident. It would be relevant here to

advert to Regulation 4 of Schedule X of the Motor Vehicles Act, which enjoins upon the driver of a motor vehicle to ensure that he should over-

take a vehicle travelling in the same direction only if he can do so without endangering other traffic on the road. This was complied with by the

truck driver only in its breach. It has also come in evidence that Abrahim, truck-driver, was court-martialed with regard to this incident and

awarded three month''s imprisonment in military jail.

The material on record thus leaves no manner of doubt that the accident took place entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the military

truck driver.

The claimant in this case is Darshan Singh, father of Kamaljit Singh deceased. Kamaljit Singh was 23 years of age and the evidence on record

shows that he was earning Rs. 300/- per month. The Tribunal rightly took the loss suffered by the claimant to be at the rate of Rs. 100/- per

month. The claimant being 55 years old, he would be expected to have lived and to have been dependant upon his deceased son for a period of

15 years keeping in view the normal life span of 70 years. In these circumstances, a multiplier of 10 or 11 would clearly be the appropriate

yardstick for measuring the damage suffered by the claimant in the light of the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit

Kaur 1979 A.C.J. 170 (P. and H.). The figure that works out on this basis is almost as much as the amount awarded. There are consequently no

grounds to award any enhanced or lesser amount than that awarded, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that

Kamaljit Singh was also likely to have got married and thereby increased his expense? upon himself.

The Tribunal, however, erred in not awarding interest on the amount awarded. The award of the Tribunal is upheld and affirmed with the

modification that the claimant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of the application till the date of

payment of the amount awarded.

The appeal is consequently dismissed while the cross-objections are accepted to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to

costs.