FAQIR SINGH Vs. MURARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Section 100 D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity 'the Act') challenges the award dated 28.3.1987 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). In respect of the issue as to whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by Murari Lal-driver respondent No. 1, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles and both of them were equally responsible. It has further been held that the total annual income of the deceased was Rs. 35,120/- which is rounded of to Rs. 35,100/- and deduction of Rs. 11,700/- towards his personal expenses has been made. The total annual income has been found to be Rs. 23,400/-. A multiplier of 16 has been applied by keeping in view the age of the deceased who was 30 years old. A total compensation of Rs. 3,74,400/- has been worked out. On account of the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased a cut of 50 percent has been imposed and the total compensation has been found to be Rs. 1,87,200/-. Accordingly, the claimant- appellants have been awarded the afore-mentioned amount by holding all the respondents liable jointly and severally. The liability of the insurance company has been kept to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The claimant -appellants have been held entitled to interest @ 12 percent p.a. w.e.f. 28.1.1986 the date of filing of claim petition till the realisation of the amount. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- each has been apportioned in favour of Faqir Singh, appellant No. 1 and Smt. Ranjit Kaur and Rs. 20,000/- each to Gurmit Singh and Ranchat-the minor children of deceased Ranjit Singh. Kulbir Kaur the widow of Ranjit Singh has been awarded the rest of the amount.

(2.) On issue No. 1, the Tribunal has discarded the version of the claimant- appellants and their witnesses. A perusal of the record shows that the accident has taken place on 23.8.1995 at about 11.40 AM at a distance of 8 kms. from Police Station , Sampla on Rohtak-Delhi road. An FIR was recorded at 12.10 PM and Murari Lal, driver- respondent No. 1 was alleged to have committed the offence under Section 304 A IPC. The FIR is on record as Ex.PB. The earliest version recorded in the FIR would indicate that the truck bearing registration No. RSC 8292 was being driven rashly and negligently by Murari Lal, driver- respondent No. 1 had hit the car bearing registration No. DIC 251 driven by deceased Ranjit Singh which was reduced to pieces. It has also been pointed out in the FIR that the truck had dragged the car approximately upto a distance of 50 yards. As a result, the driver of the car, namely Ranjit Singh, died on the spot. The aforementioned version unfolded in the FIR has been corroborated in material particular and in details by Head Constable Jagpal Singh, PW 3 and Constable Rajbir Singh PW 6. These two police officials have deposed that they alongwith other constables were going to their village Chulana on their respective bicycles. After covering a distance of about 8 kms. from Sampla the car in question crossed them at a normal speed and in the meanwhile the offending truck came from the side of Rohtak at a very fast speed. It struck against the car which was going on its correct side at a normal speed. The truck dragged the car upto a distance of about 50 yards. The car was completely damaged and the driver of the car had expired on the spot. Head Constable Jagpal Singh further deposed that he prepared the writing regarding the accident and send the same to the police station for registration of the case which is Ex.PB. He has also prepared rough site plan of the place of the accident. A certified copy of the same has been placed on record as Ex.PC. He arrested driver- respondent No. 1 Murari Lal at the spot. He has also stated that the accident took place at about 11.00/ 11.15 AM. It is thus obvious that FIR was recorded with promptitude before there was any opportunity for any coloured version. It is well settled that a prompt FIR corroborated by its author and other evidence can be safely relied upon.

(3.) The respondents have admitted the accident yet it was alleged that it was the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased and not that of Murari Lal, driver- respondent No. 1. Apart from the appearance of Murari Lal as RW 3, owner of the truck Om Parkash had also appeared as RW 1. In addition, one Diwana Ram RW 2 was also examined who was the owner of the goods (Gram bags) which were being transported on the truck at the relevant time. Their version is that the offending truck was proceeding towards Delhi at a normal speed. The car in question was coming at a very fast speed. They have further stated that one cow suddenly appeared on the road and in order to save the cow, the deceased car driver swerved his car towards right hand side of the road. On account of excessive speed of the car he was not in a position to control it and struck against the right side of the truck. The theory of appearance of cow on the road has been discarded by the Tribunal itself for the reason that there has been no mention of such a fact in the written statement and non-mentioning of the aforementioned fact has led the Tribunal to reach the conclusion that there was no truth in this plea and it has been devised as an after-thought in order to create defence. The Tribunal has reached the afore-mentioned conclusion in para 10 by observing as under: