INDERJIT KAUR Vs. SOM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-claimants have filed the present appeal against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar, dated 27/2/1987 by which the appellants were awarded a compensation of Rs. 51,000.00 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of the death of Jaswinder Singh.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that Jaswinder Singh was driving jeep No. DBB-8590 and one Tejinder Singh Sidhu was also sitting in the said jeep. They were going from Ropar to Patiala on 19.5.1986 and when they reached near village Charheri, they crossed a matador bearing registration No. PAT-9357 which was being driven by Som Nath. Thereafter the driver of the matador tried to overtake the jeep being driven by Jaswinder Singh from the left hand side and the accident occurred as a result of which the left side of the jeep was smashed and Jaswinder Singh died in the accident. Tejinder Singh Sidhu received injuries. An FIR No.37 dated 19.5.1986 was lodged by one Arjan Singh who had taken the deceased and the injured to the hospital. The appellants who are the widow, two minor children and aged parents of Jaswinder Singh filed a petition under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 5 lacs on account of the death of Jaswinder Singh. Replies were filed by the owner, driver and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle wherein the stand was that the vehicles were coming from the opposite direction and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased who was driving the jeep. Thus, before the Tribunal there were two conflicting versions with regard to the manner in which the accident had taken place. According to the claimants, the accident had taken place as the driver of the matador was trying to overtake the jeep being driven by the deceased whereas according to the respondents, both the vehicles were coming from the opposite direction and the accident had taken place because of the negligence of the driver of the jeep. The Tribunal after going through the rival pleas of both the parties, discarded the version given by the respondent driver and found that both the vehicles were going in the same direction and while the driver of the matador was trying to overtake the jeep the accident took place. It was found that it was a rainy day and the accident could have taken place because of the jeep's skidding.

(3.) Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place because of the contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. Thus, the compensation awarded was reduced by 50%. Mr. Pasricha, counsel for the claimants, has vehemently argued that the accident had taken place because the driver of the matador was trying to overtake the jeep from the left hand side. There are accident marks on the front left hand side of the jeep. He has placed reliance on the photographs Exs. R1, R2 and R3 which clearly shows that the matador had hit the jeep on its left hand side and, thus, according to the learned counsel it was the driver of the matador who was at fault. I have perused the photographs Exs. R1 to R3 and the photographs clearly depict that the left front side of the jeep has been smashed by the matador. In fact the matador is stationed on the left hand side of the jeep which clearly shows that the driver of the matador was trying to overtake the jeep from the wrong side.