BEANT KAUR Vs. JARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal in FAO No.251 of 1993 is against an award of dismissal of the claim for compensation for death of a male, aged 34years. He was a pedestrian on the road and he died when a tractor ran FAO No.251 of 1993 (O&M) - 2 -over him and yet another person by name Santa Singh. The defence was that Santa Singh was deaf and he was suddenly crossing the road unmindful of the tractor which was coming and in an attempt to steer out of the way of Santa Singh, the driver Jarnail Singh turned out in another direction and ran over the deceased Virinder Singh. The driver stated that the tractor was at a very low speed and the accident had taken place only on account of the fault of those persons, who were pedestrians.Contrary to the evidence, the Tribunal took a reasoning which was at variance both with the contentions of the claimant as well as the statement contained by the contesting respondents. The Tribunal held that there was entry in DDR which showed that the deceased Virinder Singh was driving the tractor and he had first dashed against Santa Singh and later fell down from the tractor and got run over by the tractor. I cannot visualize how such a situation could have taken place when it was no body's case that the tractor had capsized. A person cannot be catapulted from his seat to get under the tyre in the manner reasoned by the Tribunal. The assessment of compensation by the Tribunal on no fault basis was not justified and, on the other hand, the Tribunal ought to have held that the accident had taken place only when Jarnail Singh was driving. The fact that Jarnail Singh was a brother-in-law of Virinder Singh cannot make a difference and there was no cause for an unnecessary suspicion as entertained by the Tribunal that all the relatives joined together to fabricate a false case. Two persons died in the accident was not false nor was the involvement of the tractor itself false. The only issue was, Who was driving the tractor. The inference that the FAO No.251 of 1993 (O&M) - 3 -deceased himself must have been driving the tractor, in my view, does not accord with the pleading.

(2.) In the manner of a collision between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian, I would always place a greater circumspection and a care for the driver of the vehicle. I will not take that a pedestrian's negligence alone could ever cause an accident. I have had an occasion to deal with the situation in Mohindro Devi and others v. Sukh Ram and others in FAO No.48 of 1991, dated 06.12.2010 as under:-

(3.) I am of the view that the approach of the Tribunal was wholly faulty. Learned counsel for the insurance company would argue that there was no negligence at all of the truck and the accident had taken place only by the negligence of the cyclist. Any driver of a motor cycle ought to know that a cyclist or a pedestrian has just as much use for the road as they have. There shall be a greater degree of circumspection for a driver on a motor vehicle, than a pedestrian or a cyclist. The reasons are obvious. A pedestrian dashing against another pedestrian does not cause death nor a cyclist could cause death to a pedestrian.It is only a faster moving vehicle with heavier mass can cause death by its impact. A person that drives a truck ought to be prepared at any time for even a careless use of the road by a pedestrian or a cyclist. I will be loath to infer an element of negligence for a cyclist or a pedestrian ever. I would, on the other hand, hold a driver of the motor cycle to be always responsible if there results on impact with the cyclist and he comes to harm and in this case, a person was crushed to death. It will be wrong to assume that a driver,who could drive the vehicle carefully, would cause death by the negligence of another. Even an issue of contributory negligence in such situations ought not to be easily inferred. I would, therefore, reverse the finding that the accident took place only by the negligence of the cyclist and that the driver of the truck was careful in his driving.