CHHAYA RANI Vs. SHARDANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have filed this appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has attributed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident and has awarded only 50% of the total compensation in favour of the appellants. The appellants besides challenging the findings of the Tribunal on contributory negligence have also sought enhancement of compensation not only on the ground that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased but also on the ground that the multiplier has not been correctly applied and just compensation has thus not been awarded in their favour. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are:-

(2.) While deciding issues 1 and 2, the Tribunal held that the death of the deceased occurred due to the accident which resulted on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver as well as on account of the contributory negligence of the deceased himself. The Tribunal calculated the average income of the deceased at Rs.1200.00 per month and as he was unmarried, the loss of dependency to the family was taken at 1/3rd of the said income or say Rs.400.00 per month. Applying the multiplier of 9 to the loss of dependency the Tribunal arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs.43,200.00 adding to this another sum of Rs.9,500.00 towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses etc. The Tribunal arrived at a total compensation of Rs.52,700.00. Since it was held that the deceased was equally negligent in causing the accident, 50% of this compensation was awarded in favour of the appellants.

(3.) While holding that the deceased was equally negligent and had contributed to the accident, the Tribunal has held that, though, the bus was at a fast speed but it was also the duty of the cyclist to take a proper look at the traffic coming from behind in particular in peak hours, as was the time of the accident, and duty to take necessary precautions was all the more heavy on the slow moving cyclist. Tribunal further held that the collision took place while the cyclist tried to cut across the path of the fast moving bus from its front side so as to join the traffic on the road towards Wazirpur Industrial Area resulting in the collision which allegedly showed not only the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus but also on the cyclist in equal shares.