FAO No.1058 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1058 of 1999 Date of Decision. 11.10.2010 Shanti Devi widow of Raj Singh, resident of Bohar, the & District Rohtak ......Appellant Versus Amarjit son of Om Parkash resident of Rurkee, Teh and District Rohtak, Driver of Truck No.HR-46/2410 and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. This is an appeal seeking for enhancement of claim at the instance of the representatives of the deceased where the contributory negligence was attributed to the deceased for sleeping under the truck, which had been parked. The driver started the vehicle without noticing that the deceased was sleeping under the vehicle. The Tribunal found that he had contributed to the accident by his own negligence in sleeping under the truck where it was lying parked. 2. I cannot accept the reasoning of the Tribunal. It is a pitiable state of affairs that a driver or a cleaner attached to a vehicle does not get lodged in appropriate hotels or resting places FAO No.1058 of 1999 -2- when they are on long transit. We have very little public conveniences provided on highways where truck drivers or cleaners, who are on long journey could rest. It is common place to pull up to the kerb and sleep on the pedestrian platform or under the vehicle itself. It is a daily occurrence. It is literally a dog's living and is no respectable way that truck owners treat their employees. A driver of a vehicle that starts it ought to ensure that the vehicle is absolutely safe to start looking all round and just not all around, underneath as well. What a driver should ensure to see that there is no dog sleeping under the vehicle to be get killed, he should do much more for a person to ensure that there is no man sleeping underneath his vehicle. Rule books shall not teach this, but common sense must. What he owes to a dog, he owes more to a human being. I cannot see any contributory negligence in such a situation. The driver had been negligent and if there is a negligence of the driver, a fortiorari there has to be an insurer to satisfy the claim. The compensation determined suffered a partial abatement to the tune of 50% for the alleged contributory negligence. In the view that I have held that there is no contributory negligence, the amount shall be paid in full. There shall be, therefore, an additional compensation of Rs.90,000/- which will attract interest @9% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 11, 2010 Pankaj*