IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1584 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:03.12.2010 Rita Kunwar ....Appellant versus Lachman Dass and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Brar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.C.Kapoor, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. At the asking of the Court, Shri R.C.Kapoor, Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the Insurance Company. 2. The appeal is against the award passed by the Tribunal seeking for enhancement in a case where the Tribunal found the deceased himself to be responsible for the accident and awarded Rs.25,000/- on no fault basis. The involvement of the insured’s vehicle was an admitted fact. The contention of the driver was that while he was driving the tempo at the speed of 25/30 kilometers per hour, the deceased was riding on a cycle came across the road without minding the tempo which was coming in the same road and got hit. The Tribunal reasoned that the negligence of the driver of the tempo was not established and FAO No.1584 of 1992 (O&M) - 2 - that the evidence proved that the deceased tried to cross the road hurriedly without seeing both sides about the oncoming traffic and hit the tempo. 3. I cannot accept such a line of reasoning. In cases of accidents involving motor vehicles, the degree of negligence that is required to be proved is indeed negligible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Khaushama Begum Versus New India Assurance Company Limited-(2001) 1 SCC 155 expounds a theory of strict liability and places an extraordinary responsibility for a driver of motor vehicle to apply caution. Nobody comes to road to get killed. If there is a death of pedestrian or a cyclist, I would invariably place the burden on the driver of the motor vehicle than finding a fault with the cyclist or pedestrian. It will be an oxymoron to say that an accident took place and death resulted by careful driving of a driver of a motor vehicle. A careful driving never results in death. A driver shall know his way on a road, particularly on Indian roads, that the cyclists and pedestrians also use roads. They have no specifically demarcated pathways a right to do so. We do not have express highways where pedestrians or cyclists could be kept off for a driver to go clipping at a high speed. Even a driver of a motor vehicle driving at a modest speed must take sufficient care that even in worst situation of someone crossing the road unexpectedly, he steers it clear of an impact and causes no collision. I reject the reasoning of the Tribunal and find therefore the driver of the vehicle to have been responsible for the accident. FAO No.1584 of 1992 (O&M) - 3 - 4. The deceased was 25 years of age and he was working as Centrifugal operator in a motor Company and the employer had also been examined to say that he was earning Rs.1,500/- per month. Although Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another-2009 ACJ 1298 provided for prospect of future increase only in cases where there was a fair degree of certainty for employment with prospects of increase, I will not deny to a claim of a person, who was a skilled worker of prospect of increase in future. I would take an average income of the deceased to be, under the circumstances, at Rs.2,250/-, make a deduction of 1/3rd for his personal consumption and take the extent of contribution to the family at Rs.1,500/- per month. I will provide for a multiplier of 18 and take the extent of loss of dependency at Rs.3,24,000/-. I will add another Rs.10,000/- towards conventional heads of claim towards loss to estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses and award a compensation at Rs.3,34,000/-. The amount in excess of Rs.25,000/- shall bear interest at 6% per annum and the liability shall be on the insurer for the amount. 5. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.12.2010 sanjeev