GYATRI DEVI Vs. SATBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation arising out of an accident where the 1 st claimant's husband died. The accident had taken place when the deceased, who was going on a scooter was overtaking a private bus and the Haryana Roadways bus, which was coming in the opposite direction dashed against it. One Suresh, who was going on scooter as a pillion rider driven by one Surya Prakash had lodged the FIR and he had also testified in the evidence that the accident had taken place when the deceased was overtaking the private bus. Suresh, who was examined, grew more cautious and gave a statement that the accident had taken place after the Haryana Roadways crossed the private bus and dashed against him on the wrong side of the road. The Tribunal found the contradiction between the evidence of two witnesses and examined it in the context of the evidence given by the driver of the Haryana Roadways itself. According to him the scooter had come to the wrong side of the road while overtaking the private bus and the accident had taken place only on account of the negligent driving of the scooterist.

(2.) In my view, the entire appreciation of evidence has been faulty. The accident had taken place on main road and not within the town. If the scooterist was committing a wrong judgment in assuming that he would be able to cross the private bus before the bus coming from the opposite direction had crossed the private bus then the collision could not have taken place unless the driver of the bus was also in some manner negligent. If it was not within the town and it was on a main road outside the town, there ought to have been sufficient space for more than two vehicles to pass at the same time. There ought to have been evidence by the driver himself to the effect that he pulled the vehicle to the further left and still there was no place for him to avoid the collision. All that he wanted to say was that the scooterist was trying to overtake the private bus and had come to the extreme right side of the road. I cannot believe such a contention, for on a broad main road a person, who was overtaking a private vehicle would have provided only sufficient width in order that he was provided with safe distance between himself and the vehicle, which he was overtaking. If the driver of the bus coming from the opposite direction had been more cautious, he could have avoided the collision by pulling towards further left. I will find the negligence attributed wholly to the deceased as improper and if at all it must only be taken that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence and the driver of the bus was also responsible for the collision. I will apportion the liability between the deceased scooterist and the driver of the bus in the ratio of 50:50 and proceeded to determine the compensation on that basis.

(3.) The deceased was a Lecturer in a Government school on a salary of Rs. 6097/-. There was a sure prospect of future increase and applying the scales as suggested by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, 2009 6 SCC 121, I would provide for 50% increase on the same and take the average income to be Rs. 9145/-. I will provide for 1/4 th deduction and take the contribution to the family to be Rs. 6858/-, apply a multiplier of 17 as suitable to the age of the deceased. The loss of dependency will be Rs. 13,99,032/-. This will suffer an abatement of 50% having regard to the finding that he had been guilty of negligence contributed to the extent of 50%. The ultimate loss of dependency would be Rs. 6,99,516/-. To this must be added also the loss of consortium to the wife at Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 2500/- for minor daughter towards loss of love and affection and a further sum of Rs. 7500/- towards funeral expenses and loss to estate. This amount of Rs. 15,000/- will also suffer 50% abatement and the total compensation payable would be Rs. 7,07,016/-. The amount shall also bear interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount shall be shared in the ratio of 2:2:1 between the wife, daughter and mother. The liability shall be on the Haryana Roadways and the claimant shall have a right of enforcement against the same.