N S RAUT Vs. A V SHRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the owner of the Truck as well as Insurance Company against the Award passed by the Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune dated 26th of February 1980 in Applications Nos. 9 and 10 of 1977.

(2.) It is an admitted position that an accident took place on the night between 21st and 22nd of February 1976 in which the deceased Captain Ravichandran died on the spot. It is also an admitted position that the Captain Ravichandran and his wife Mythily were proceeding on a scooter and a truck driven by D. W. Sampat was coming from the opposite side. Mythily was occupying the pillion seat at the material time and the scooter was proceeding along Bombay-Pune Road. It is the case of the claimants that Captain Ravinchandran was driving his scooter slowly on the left hand side of the road, whereas the truck driven by Sampat came from the opposite direction and was being driven at a recklessly high speed and without sounding any horn. It had only one head-light and that too on the left side and this driver of the lorry was careless and negligent in driving. Thus the driver was driving the truck carelessly and disregarded the safety rules. Ultimately he lost his control over his vehicle, suddenly swerved to the wrong side and in the process hit the scooterist with violent force, and as a result of this accident Smt. Mythily fell down and the scooter got in the wheel of the lorry and was dragged to a distance of about 50 feet when the truck ultimately stopped. As a result of this violent drag Captain Ravichandran died on the spot. Thus, it was the case of the claimants that because of the negligent driving of Sampat, the truck driver, accident took place resulting in the death of Captain Ravichandran and serious injuries to Mrs. Mythily. The statements made in the application by the claimants were denied by the opponents. In all two separate applications came to be filed one by the widow of the deceased for the injuries sustained by her and the another by Mrs. Mythily and her parents. Both these applications were heard together and were also disposed of by a common judgment. In support of their case, claimants examined Smt. Mythily, wife of the deceased who is also an eye-witness since she was sitting on the pillion of the scooter when the unfortunate accident took place. The claimants had also examined Suresh Dnyaneshwar Kulkarni, section officer C.D.O. Pune to prove the emoluments drawn by the deceased. P.W. 3 Kallappa is a panch witness to the panchnama. P.W. 4 is Captain Ashokkumar who has produced the documents to prove the pay scale etc. of the deceased. P.W. 5 Chandrikaprasad is the Army Medical Officer who has proved the injuries sustained by Smt. Mythily. P.W. 6 Deshmukh is also examined to prove the service rules by which the deceased was governed. P.W. 7 A. V. Shrinivasan is the father of the deceased. So far as the opponents are concerned, they examined Sampat the driver of the truck. After appreciating all the evidence on record the learned Member of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place because of the negligent driving by Sampat, the truck driver. The learned Member has recorded a positive finding that the truck driven by Sampat which came from the opposite direction was being driven recklessly at a high speed without sounding any horn and having only one head light on the left side. The learned Member also came to the conclusion that Captain Ravichandran was driving his scooter on the left hand side of the road and was not negligent at all. As a result of this finding and after taking into consideration the emoluments which the deceased might have received in his service career, the learned Member came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to get compensation at Rs. 1,75,000/- so far as the deceased Captain is concerned. He also found that Smt. Mythily was entitled to get Rs. 20,500/- as additional compensation for the injuries sustained by her. Thereafter the learned Member passed the order of apportionment of compensation. As already observed it is this award made by the learned Member which is challenged in the present first appeal. 2A. Shri Kudroli, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended before us that the accident took place primarily due to negligence of the deceased. In any case this was a case of contributory negligence. He further contended that even the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is wholly illegal. The method followed by the Tribunal is not only erroneous but the learned Member has also committed an error in not making proper deductions from the amount of compensation arrived at. According to Shri Kudroli taking any view of the matter it was the duty of the learned Member of the Tribunal to first arrive at a figure of dependancy so far as the dependants are concerned. The dependency could not have been more than Rs. 400/- per month. The learned Member also failed to take into consideration that in the normal course the couple would have some children and therefore the dependancy would have been reduced so far as the wife and parents are concerned. He also committed an error in calculating the compensation on the basis of gross salary and not on the basis of net salary after deduction of income tax etc. In support of his contention Shri Kudroli has placed strong reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 1750, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1971 SC 1624, Sheikhpura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters Insu. Co. Ltd. and the decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court in 1980 Acc CJ 1, H. P. Road Transport Corporation v. Pt. Jai Ram and etc. etc.

(3.) On the other hand it is contended by Shri Tipnis, the learned counsel appearing for respondents, that on the material placed on record it is more than clear that the accident took place because of the negligent driving of the truck driver. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is contended by Shri Tipnis that what was awarded is also grossly inadequate. Therefore in any case no interference is called for with the award passed by the Tribunal.