F.A.O.No. 1046 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) F.A.O.No. 1046 of 1987 Smt. Ram Dulari ....Appellant Versus The National Transport Co.Ltd., Hoshiarpur and others ...Respondents 2) F.A.O.No. 1047 of 1987 Jagat Ram ....Appellant Versus The Hoshiarpur National Transport Co.Ltd., Hoshiarpur and another ...Respondents 3) F.A.O.No. 1048 of 1987 Smt. Usha Rani ....Appellant Versus Mohinder Singh and others ...Respondents Date of Decision : 20.11.2008 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. R.M.Suri, Advocate for the appellant in all the appeals. F.A.O.No. 1046 of 1987 -2- None for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This order will dispose of the aforesaid three appeals filed by the claimants for grant of enhanced compensation. In an accident which occurred on 22.2.1985 appellants Smt. Ram Dulari and Jagat Ram suffered injuries while Ram Dev lost his life. Appellant Usha Rani is the widow of deceased Ram Dev who was also a passenger travelling in the tempo which was being driven by Surjit Singh. Said Surjit Singh was held guilty of having caused the accident, as a result of which the claim petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the finding on the issue of negligence and prayed that it be set aside and the appellants be held entitled to compensation keeping in view the injuries sustained by them and on account of death of Ram Dev. No one appears for the respondents despite service. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the award, I am of the opinion that the award deserves to be modified. In so far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the accident took place on a culvert. The testimony of RW3 Mohinder Singh, the driver of the bus is quite revealing. He has stated as under :- “On the day of accident, I was driving bus No.PNH-2835 from Kamahi Devi towards Jheer-Di- F.A.O.No. 1046 of 1987 -3- Khoohi. When I reached near a culvert, near Naushehra a tempo came from the opposite side. The tempo was full of passengers and was rather overloaded. Some passengers were standing on the back of the tempo and some on the entrance gates. I was driving my bus at a speed of 35/40 kilometers per hour. I had blown horn and had shown lights when the bus was nearing the culvert. Two vehicles could not pass side by side on the culvert. I was driving the bus on my left hand side of the road. Tempo was being driven in the middle of the road. Tempo struck against my bus. Because of the culvert, I could not divert my bus towards my extreme left side....” From the perusal of the above statement it becomes clear that the bus was approaching the culvert when its driver noticed a tempo coming from the opposite side which was also converging on the culvert. If that was so, then the driver of the bus should have made an attempt to stop the bus before reaching the culvert. Rather he made signs by putting on the lights implying that he wanted to cross the culvert first. This only reveals the aggressive driving of the driver of the bus. Obviously, the culvert was narrow as described by the driver of the bus and could not have contained two vehicles at the same time. In such a situation the drivers of the vehicles are expected to anticipate as to whether they would be able to cross a bridge or a narrow passage in the event of the other vehicle also coming in that passage and if the driver is cautious, then he can take steps to avoid the situation. Apparently, it was not done in the present case. F.A.O.No. 1046 of 1987 -4- Accordingly, it is held that the drivers of the bus and tempo were equally negligent in causing the accident and having contributed to the accident to the extent of 50% each. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, appellant Ram Dulari has been able to prove that she had suffered dislocation of hip joint. But the Tribunal did not award anything to the said appellant. There is no evidence, however, to show that there was any permanent disability. However, considering the fact that Ram Dulari had suffered a fracture, in my opinion the ends of justice would safely be met if she is awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the injuries that she had suffered. In the accident in question Jagat Ram appellant also suffered simple injuries and has undergone a trauma of the accident. In my considered opinion, it would be just and appropriate if a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to Jagat Ram appellant. Ordered accordingly. In F.A.O.No.1048 of 1987, which has been preferred by Smt. Usha Rani on account of the death of her husband Ram Dev, it was claimed that the deceased was a cloth merchant and was earning Rs.1,000/- per month. However, there is no evidence on record to show that he was working as a cloth merchant. Therefore, he is to be assessed as a labourer and in the year 1987 a labourer would be earning at least Rs.1,000/- per month but certainly he would not be getting regular employment. So, it would be safe to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.800/- per month or Rs.9,600/- per annum. 1/3th of the said income has to be deducted on account of personal expenses. In this manner, the dependency in this case comes to F.A.O.No. 1046 of 1987 -5- Rs.533/-, which is rounded off to Rs.535/- per month. The deceased was aged 25 years at the time of his death. The multiplier of 16 would be just and adequate keeping in view the schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act which is the guiding factor. Thus, in this appeal the total compensation works out to Rs.535x12x16=1,02,720/-. The appellants shall be entitled to the 50% of the compensation awarded because of the finding of contributory negligence along with interest @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing of the respective petitions till the date of realisation. The liability to satisfy the award to the extent indicated above shall be that of respondents No.1 and 3 jointly and severally. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, all the appeals stand allowed. 20.11.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss F.A.O.No. 1046 of 1987 -6- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 1047 of 1987 Date of Decision : 20.11.2008 Jagat Ram ....Appellant Versus The Hoshiarpur National Transport Co.Ltd., Hoshiarpur and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. R.M.Suri, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. For orders, see F.A.O.No.1046 of 1987 (Smt.Ram Dulari v. The National Transport Co. Ltd. and others). 20.11.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss F.A.O.No. 1046 of 1987 -7- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 1048 of 1987 Date of Decision : 20.11.2008 Smt. Usha Rani ....Appellant Versus Mohinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. R.M.Suri, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. For orders, see F.A.O.No.1046 of 1987 (Smt.Ram Dulari v. The National Transport Co. Ltd. and others). 20.11.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss