SUDHA RANI GOYAL Vs. KRISHNA STEELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals, i.e. FAO No. 471 of 1996 and FAO No. 472 of 1996 are against the award of dismissal for the claims arising out of a death and injury resulting from motor accident. The deceased and the injured were passengers in a private car and the accident had taken place when on a rainy slippery night the driver of the car had not noticed a parked truck which had been involved in yet another accident the previous night and had been remaining stationary having dashed against a tree. The Tribunal reasoned that the accident had taken place due to the unfortunate event of rain and poor visibility and also that it was an act of God and found responsible the drivers of both the vehicles and dismissed the petition.

(2.) By the fact that the truck was remaining stationary and it had dashed against a tree, it must only be assumed that the truck could not have been in the middle of the road if it had dashed against a tree and was remaining parked since the previous night. Even yet another vehicle coming and dashing against such a stationary vehicle must take a higher burden of responsibility. But in this case the Tribunal reasoned that the drivers of the vehicles cannot be found faulty with. In my view, such an inference was not realistic or proper. The truck driver, having dashed his vehicle must have ensured that the vehicle was pushed in any way as not to make obstruction to the traffic. He must have also known that during rainy season with poor visibility there ought to have been sufficient indicators for a stationary vehicle. There was evidence that the parking lights had stopped working and there was no sufficient indicator. Even then I cannot take the driver of the car as totally free from blame, for there was need for a greater circumspection when it was a rainy night and when the visibility was poor. It will be no answer to a situation of an accident for a driver to plead that it was beyond his control to save the accident. The Tribunal ought to have placed a higher burden to explain as to why he could not avoid hitting the vehicle which was parked. I will take the liability of the driver at 75% and take the liability of the truck at 25% for having let the vehicle remain stationary without removing it from the place of accident since the previous night.

(3.) The Tribunal did not make any determination of compensation, for, according to it, the accident had resulted in a situation where nobody could be made answerable for the claims emanating from death and injury to the occupants of the car. Since I have already held that liability has to be fastened in a manner that I have directed, the quantum for the claim of a mother for the death of a passenger who was an 18 years old boy and was said to be working somewhere and earning Rs. 2000/-per month, I will take as notional income Rs. 15000/-discarding the artificial claim that he was earning, when he was still a student. I would make a deduction of 1/3rd and apply a multiplier of 16 to take the loss of extent of dependence at Rs. 1,60,000/-and add Rs. 5000/-towards loss of love and affection for the mother and further a sum of Rs. 5000/-for funeral expenses. The total amount of compensation shall be Rs. 1,70,000/-and this shall also attract interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The apportionment of liability shall be as determined already, namely, 75% on the insurer of the car and 25% by the owner and insurer of the truck.