LPA No. 849 of 1996 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 849 of 1996 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.04.2010 Asha Saharia ....Appellant. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. LPA No.850 of 1996 Leelawati and others ....Appellants. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. LPA No.851 of 1996 G.S. Saharia ....Appellant. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Munishwar Puri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Girhotra, Advocate for the respondents. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. All the above Letters Patent Appeals have arisen from one and LPA No. 849 of 1996 2 common judgement dated 11.1.1996, hence the same are being heard and decided together. For the purposes of deciding the appeals, we take-up the facts of LPA No.849 of 1996. 2. Present intra-Court appeal is filed assailing judgement dated 11.1.1996 passed by learned Single Judge in FAO Nos.598, 599 and 600 of 1996, whereby allowing the appeals to the extent that claimants will be entitled to 1/4th of compensation amount as determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). 3. Brief facts of the present case are that on December 14, 1978, Haryana Roadways bus No.HRL 5549 collided with car No.CLI 7752; Rattan Ram, driver of the car was killed while three persons, namely, G.S. Saharia, Asha Saharia and I.S. Saharia sustained serious injuries. Widow and minor children of Rattan Ram, driver of the car filed petition claiming compensation on account of the death of Rattan Ram in the accident in question; G.S. Saharia, Asha Saharia and I.S. Saharia filed separate petitions claiming compensation on account of the injuries suffered by them. Widow and children of Rattan Ram claimed compensation of Rs.1 lac, Asha Saharia claimed compensation of Rs.1 lac, G.S. Saharia claimed compensation of Rs.2 lacs and I.S. Saharia claimed compensation of Rs.2 lacs. 4. The Tribunal refused to grant any compensation to any of the claimants on the ground that the accident had not taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the bus in question, although, the Tribunal in the body of the judgement has observed that compensation for injuries sustained by G.S Saharia is assessed at Rs.50,000/-, for Asha Saharia Rs.25,000/-, for I.S. Saharia Rs.40,000/- and for Lila Vati, widow of Rattan LPA No. 849 of 1996 3 Ram Rs.48,000. Judgement of the Tribunal in all the claim petitions were challenged before learned Single Judge by way of filing appeals bearing FAO No.598, 599 and 600 of 1996. Learned Single Judge disposed of all the aforesaid appeals vide impugned judgement dated 11.1.1996. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned Single Judge of this Court placing reliance on the statement of G.S. Saharia PW1, I.S. Saharia PW2 and Asha Saharia PW3 has come to the conclusion that the car in which deceased and injured were traveling, was moving behind the bullock cart. The bus in question came from the opposite side and struck against right side of the car. N.K. Jain, PW6 said to be travelling in the bus in question was also examined, who has corroborated and supported the case of the claimants. Learned Single Judge has observed that the accident was caused due to the negligence of both the drivers and held that the driver of the car was liable to the extent of 3/4th while the driver of the bus was held liable to the extent of 1/4th. 7. Learned Single Judge further directed that out of the compensation fixed by the Tribunal, claimants are entitled to 1/4th thereof from the Haryana Roadways. 8. Having perused the record, we find no reason and justification to hold that the driver of the car is liable to the extent of 3/4th and driver of the bus is liable to the extent of 1/4th. It is settled principle of law that in case of contributory negligence, liability would be 50 – 50%. However, from the statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3, we find that it is not the case of even contributory negligence. PW6, who was travelling in the bus in question has stated on oath that the car was moving behind the bullock cart LPA No. 849 of 1996 4 and the bus was coming from the opposite direction and hit the car from the front right side. It does not seem to be an accident by contributory negligence. It seems to be an accident due to the negligence of the bus driver. Hence, we set aside the finding of learned Single Judge on the question of contributory negligence and hold that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus involved in the accident. 9. We have carefully examined the judgement of the Tribunal as well as the material available on the record. The Tribunal recorded that income of Rattan Ram, deceased was only Rs.250/- per month. We are aware of the fact that the accident took place on 14.12.1978. In 1978 also income of the driver cannot be less than Rs.500/- per month. That way, income of the driver would come to Rs.6,000/- per annum. In normal course, Rattan Ram, deceased would have utilized 1/3rd of his income for himself. Deducting 1/3rd income out of Rs.6,000/-, annual income would come to Rs.4,000/-. In our view, multiplier of 16 was rightly pressed in service by the Tribunal. Rs.4,000/- multiplied by 16 comes to Rs.64,000/-. Hence, we find that the claimants/L.Rs. of Rattan Ram are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.64,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of claim petition till the date of final payment. 10. We have examined the entire evidence on record to find out as to whether compensation fixed by the Tribunal for the injuries and agony suffered by other claimants is justified ? From the records, we find that the compensation assessed in respect of other claimants seems to be justified. In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, we allow present appeals. Orders impugned in the present appeals stand modified to the extent that LPA No. 849 of 1996 5 Lila Vati and other L.Rs. of Rattan Ram would be entitled to Rs.64,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. While other claimants would be entitled to compensation assessed by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The entire compensation shall be recoverable from respondent No.2 – Haryana roadways. 11. Appeals are disposed of accordingly. 12. A photocopy of the order be placed on the file of each connected case. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 07.04.2010 sk.