BALKRISHAN SACHDEV Vs. JUPITER GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN trying to cross the road to reach the bus stand on the other side at Zira, Amar Nath Sachdeva deceased was run over by truck No. PNB 2560 coming from the side of Talwandi Bhai. The truck was driven by Darbara Singh respondent and owned by respondent No. 2. This accident which resulted in the death of the deceased took place on July 7, 1993 at about 9. 00 A. M. Bal Kishan and Yudhvir minor sons of the deceased filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ferozepure claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the plea that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of Darbara Singh respondent. The owner and insurer of the truck were also impleaded as parties. The Tribunal after examining the evidence led by the parties held that the driver of the truck was guilty of culpable negligence in not taking any precautions to avoid the accident. It was further held that the deceased at the time of his death was earning about Rs. 1500/- per month out of which he was spending Rs. 1000/- on the claimants. Consequently a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was awarded as compensation on account of death of the deceased. A further sum of Rs. 5000/- was awarded to the claimants for the loss of love and affection from their father.

(2.) FEELING dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the claimants filed F. A. O. 285 of 1977 which came up for hearing before a learned single Judge who after going through the evidence on record held that the truck driver was negligent as it was incumbent upon him to have driven the same at a slow speed in a congested areas. It was further held that the deceased too was to blame party as he tried to cross the road without taking due care to see whether it was safe to do so. The deceased was accordingly held guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 25 percent. As regards the amount of compensation the learned Judge found that the deceased was earning Rs. 1600/- per month and that the loss suffered by the claimants could be atleast Rs. 800/- per month. Keeping in view the age of the deceased and that of the claimants, a multiplier of 7 was adopted as a result whereof the compensation worked out to Rs. 67,000/ -. After deducting the amount on account of contributory negligence of the deceased, the net compensation payable to the claimants worked out almost the same as was awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal of the respondents as well as the cross objections of the claimants for enhancement were, thus, dismissed. The claimants have filed the present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the finding of the learned single Judge both in regard to the contributory negligence as also the multiplier that has been adopted.

(3.) WE have heard counsel for the parties. It was strenuously urged before us that the learned Judge erred in recording a finding that the deceased contributed to the accident by his negligence to the extent of 25 per cent. We find merit in this contention. It is in evidence that Amar Nath deceased was in the middle of the road when he was run over by the truck. On seeing the truck coming at a fast speed he tried to retrace his steps and even after the driver applied brakes the truck could stop only after 15 yards thereafter and in the process it ran over the deceased. It clearly shows that the truck was being driven at a fast speed and that too when it was close to the bus stand which is usually a busy area with a lot of traffic and pedestrians on the road. The deceased made efforts to avoid the accident but, as found by the Tribunal no such attempt was made by the driver of the truck so much as that even a horn had not been blown. In the circumstances a duty was cast on the driver to avoid the accident in the event of any one suddenly crossing the road. There is no evidence on the record that the deceased was negligent. We do not, therefore, subscribe to the view of the learned single Judge that the deceased in any way contributed to the accident by his negligence. We also agree with counsel for the claimants-appellants that an appropriate multiplier was not applied by the learned Judge in the circumstances of the case. The deceased was 55 years of age and the claimants who were dependent sons were 16 years and 9 years old. It is in the evidence of Dr. Harbhajan Singh that the deceased possessed a well built body with healthy organs. In such a situation one can reasonably expect that the deceased would have in the normal course lived upto the age of 75 years atleast. The deceased has a newspaper stall at Zira and was also doing some other business. Considering the age, health, nature of occupation and the general condition of the deceased and those of the claimants, we think the appropriate multiplier in the circumstances of the case would be '12'. The total monthly earning of the deceased has been held to be Rs. 1600/- per month and the learned Judge has found that he was spending atleast Rs. 800/- per month on his sons. The compensation on this basis works out to Rs. 1,15,200/ -. Consequently, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge and modify the award of the Tribunal accordingly. The claimants will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the rate of the application till the date of realisation. It is, however, made clear that the amount already received by the claimants will have to be excluded from the amount awarded by us. All the respondents will be jointly and severally liable for the payment of this amount to the claimants who will share the amount equally. There will be no order as to costs.