DINA NATH Vs. TARN CHAND AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON December 21,1971 at 9 -30 a.m. Chaman Lal deceased 32 years old, working as an office Superintendent in the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana was coming on a bicycle from the side of Ludhiana Town and trying to enter the University premises when he was run over by car No. PUA 825. As a result of the injuries sustained by him in this accident, he lost his life. His widow, three minor children and two old parents filed a claim petition which came up for hearing before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana. Even though a claim for Rs. 2,50,000/ - was put in, yet the learned Tribunal did not admit the same on the ground that the accident took place as a result of the negligence of the deceased himself. The claimants have come up in appeal before me.

(2.) BEFORE the learned Tribunal, they relied on the ocular version given by Surinder Kumar P.W. 4 and Telu Ram P.W. 5. Both of them were the employees of the University and coming on bicycles alongwith the deceased at the material time. They have unanimously stated that Surinder Kumar P.W. 4 was going ahead on the bicycles followed by the deceased and Telu Ram P.W. 5 and Surinder Kumar P.W. 4 did give a hand signal indicating that he was going towards the University side. The witness succeeded in crossing the road without any mishap, but the car struck against the cycle of Chaman Lal deceased, in such a manner that his body got entangled in the mudguard The car could stop only at a distance of about 6/7 feet. The registration book of the car shows that it was an Ambassador make and 1970 model. The learned Tribunal did not accept the version given by these two witnesses on the curious reasoning that it was apparent from the evidence that Chaman Lal deceased tried to follow Surinder Kumar P.W. 4 without independently thinking whether the road was free from traffic or not. If the three cyclists were driving parallel to each other and one of them was ahead of the other two by one or two feet, it was quite enough for the leading cyclists to have given the signal. The distance between cyclists indicates that the car was coming at such a high speed that it could not save the cyclist who was following the leading cyclist at a distance of about 1 or 2 feet only. The car was not more than two years old on the road on the date of the accident. But at that time, its brakes must have been in perfect order. Even then the car did not stop immediately after the impact and drove on for a few feet more. These telltale circumstances clearly indicate that the accident took place as a result of the negligence of the car driver only. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on this point is, therefore, reversed.

(3.) AT this stage Mr. Puri, learned Counsel for the Respondents has argued that even a pedestrian or a cyclist has to take some care while going on the public road and if such a cyclist or a pedestrian is found to be negligent, the Court should impose suitable cut on the total compensation determined. In support of this submission Mr. Puri has relied on Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd., 1951 A.C.J 601; Khodabhai Bhagwanbhai v. Hirji Tapu and Anr. : 1980 A.C.J. 237 (Guj.). In the last mentioned case, the Gujarat High Court had imposed a cut of 25 percent on account of contributory negligence.