CHIRANJI LAL v. GURNAM KAUR — 1967 DIGILAW 139 (DEL)

HARDAYAL HARDY ( 1 ) THE appellants Chiranji Lal, Ramji Dass, and the Vanguard Insurance Company Ltd. were respondents in an application under section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, filed by the heirs and legal representatives of one Dalip Singh claiming Rs. 50,000. 00 as compensation on account of the death of Dalip Singh. The application was allowed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, who gave an award for Rs. 9,942. 00 in their favour. The present appeal is directed against that award. ( 2 ) DALIP Singh was working as a Laboratory Assistant in the College of Nursing at New Delhi. He met with an accident on Mathura Road, near Friends Colony, New Delhi, at about 5-30 P. M. on January 12,1962, when he was knocked down by truck No. DLG 2267 which was toeing driven by Chiranji Lal, appellant No. 1, and was owned by Ramji Das, appellant No. 2. The vehicle was insured with appellant No. 3, the Vanguard Insurance Company Ltd. , Madras. Dalip Singh died on the spot as a result of injuries received by him. As already stated, the respondents are heirs and legal representatives of the deceased and have thus suffered a loss on account of his death. ( 3 ) TWO contentions have been raised before me by Mr. H. S. Dhir, learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention urged by Mr. Dhir is that there is complete lack of evidence to establish that the motor vehicle involved in the accident was being driven rashly and negligently. In order to prove the motor driver's negligence, the respondents examined two eye-witnesses besides the Investigating Officer and the doctor, who performed the post mortem examination on the dead-body of Dalip Singh. The first eye-witness Gurdev Singh (P. W. 2) stated that he was coming from Okhla on his cycle when he saw Dalip Singh deceased about 25 to 30 paces ahead of him. He deposed that a truck came from behind at great speed and after crossing him knocked down Dalip Singh who was run over by the front wheel of the truck. The truck stopped at a distance of 30 to 40 yards away from the place where Dalip Singh was knocked down and that Dalip Singh died on the spot. He also stated that the driver did not give any horn. The truck stopped at a distance of 30 to 40 yards away from the place where Dalip Singh was knocked down and that Dalip Singh died on the spot. He also stated that the driver did not give any horn. In cross- examination he stated that Dalip Singh was not carrying anything on his cycle and that he did not see any tin or bags on the cycle. He denied the suggestion that Dalip Singh could not control his cycle and, therefore, fell down. He, however, admitted that he neither lodged a report with the police nor was he examined by the police in the criminal Court. He also stated that the police did not come on the scene in his presence. He, however, stated that two days after the accident he went to the police station, Lajpat Nagar, to find out the address of the deceased and that he then went to the house of the deceased where he gave his address to the relations of the deceased. I agree with Mr. Dhir that the evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence and although the Tribunal did not say so in so many words no reliance appears to have been placed on his testimony by the Tribunal too. ( 4 ) THE next witness Sarup Singh (Public Witness. 5) who investigated the case, has obviously no direct knowledge about the accident. His evidence is that he took possession of the truck, the cycle, and the turban of the deceased, some empty bags and a tin when he reached the spot. He prepared the inquest report and sent the dead-body for post mortem examination where the deceased was identified after two days of the accident. He stated that he reached the spot at 6. 30 P. M. and found Santokh Singh who claimed to be an eye-witness of the accident. As regards the other eye-witness be stated that he came on the spot afterwards without being summoned by him. He recorded the statements of Santokh Singh, Dharam Pal and Sajjan Singh on the spot, got the scene photographed and prepared the site plan, a copy of which is Exhibit Public Witness 5/2. As regards the other eye-witness be stated that he came on the spot afterwards without being summoned by him. He recorded the statements of Santokh Singh, Dharam Pal and Sajjan Singh on the spot, got the scene photographed and prepared the site plan, a copy of which is Exhibit Public Witness 5/2. He denied the suggestion that the road was divided into two parts, one part being meant for slow moving traffic and the other for fast moving traffic, but he admitted that the dead-body was lying in the centre of the road. ( 5 ) DHARAM Pal (Public Witness 6) is the second eye-witness in the case. He stated that on l2th January, 1962, at about 5. 30 P. M. , he was going to the Scout Headquarters from Suraj Kund when he saw a Sikh gentleman going on a cycle 15 to 20 yards ahead of him. A truck came from behind at a fast speed and knocked down the cyclist who fell down and died on the spot. He further stated that he went to his Head-quarters but returned to the spot after five minutes and that he did not hear any horn. His statement was recorded by the police on the same day. He is a retired railway guard and could, therefore, judge the speed of a moving object. He deposed that the truck was being driven at a fast speed which he estimated at about 40 miles per hour. In cross-examination, he deposed that he had an urgent work at Scout Headquarters and, therefore, did not stop at the scene of occurrence when be first saw the accident but he returned soon after and was present when police arrived on the scene and his statement was recorded. He also stated that the deceased was two feet inside from the left edge of the road when the accident occurred. The record of his statement, however, shows that he stated that the deceased was not run over by the truck. ( 6 ) IT is the evidence of Dharam Pal which has largely weighed with the Tribunal in coming to his conclusion that the death of the deceased was a direct result of the negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. ( 6 ) IT is the evidence of Dharam Pal which has largely weighed with the Tribunal in coming to his conclusion that the death of the deceased was a direct result of the negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. Learned counsel for the appellants has, therefore, concentrated his attack on the testimony of this witness and has urged that he could not have been present at the time of occurrence otherwise it is highly improbable that a person, who is connected with the Scout Movement, would have gone away from the scene after he had seen a man knocked down by a truck in his presence. It is also improbable that he did not inform the police about the accident when he knew that the police post was so near the place of accident nor did he telephone them from the Scout Headquarters which he could easily do. The most vital part of his evidence, according to the learned counsel, however, lies in the witness's statement to the effect that the deceased was not run over by the truck. Learned counsel argued that this clearly supported the truck driver's version of the accident. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel's criticism is not wholly without substance. But whatever lurking doubt one may have with regard to the presence of this witness at the time of accident, it is counter-balanced by the fact that the witness is in no way connected with the deceased or his relations. He made his statement before the police that very day on the spot. He has explained that he was in a great hurry to reach the Scout Headquarters and, therefore, did not stop at the scene of occurrence. He, however, returned to the spot within five minutes. It is not uncommon that a person, who is out on some urgent errand, suddenly comes upon an accident on the way ; instead of waiting for the police to arrive on the scene, he first proceeds to complete the errand and then returns to the scene as quickly as possible. The very fact that the witness returned to the scene within a few minutes after he completed his errand, may well be attributed to his back-ground as a Scout. Another man in his place might have perhaps not even given a second thought to what he had seen. The very fact that the witness returned to the scene within a few minutes after he completed his errand, may well be attributed to his back-ground as a Scout. Another man in his place might have perhaps not even given a second thought to what he had seen. There is also nothing strange about his omission to inform the police. He might have as well thought that since he was returning to the scene within a few minutes he would see on his return if there was anything to be done in that connection. ( 8 ) THAT portion of his statement in which he says that the deceased was not run over by the truck nevertheless gave me some food for thought. It was found that the statement was recorded in Urdu. I, therefore, personally examined the record to ascertain the precise words used by him. The statement as recorded reads : "the deceased was not run over by the truck. " The use of the word "not" appears to me to be wholly repugnant in the context and appears to be an obvious error in writing because the sentence "the deceased was not run over by the truck" is followed by the sentence which translated into English, reads : "the truck did not strike any other person. "the two sentences read together clearly imply that what the witness meant to convey was that the truck did run over the deceased, but it did not strike against any other person. While dealing with this statement, the Tribunal has no doubt accepted as if the, witness has stated that the deceased was not run over by the truck but according to the Tribunal this did not make much difference because the witness was making his statement after about three years and the existence of such a statement rather established that he was not a tutored witness. Whatever view of the evidence of this witness one may take, one thing is certain that the witness has no interest at all to tell a lie, that he was present at the time of the accident and that he saw the deceased being knocked down by the truck which was being driven at a fast speed. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in accepting the testimony of this witness and I am in complete agreement with him on the point. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in accepting the testimony of this witness and I am in complete agreement with him on the point. ( 9 ) THE defence set up by the driver of the vehicle, which indeed is also the defence of all the appellants in these proceedings, was that the deceased was going on a cycle which was loaded with a tin full of sugar- cane juice on the carrier and two bags of sugarcane hanging on to the handle-bar of the cycle and that one other person, who was also on cycle, was going along side the deceased. He too was carrying a bag full of articles on his carrier. Both the cyclists could not balance their machines and sundenly collided with each other. The driver of the truck, who saw the cyclists wobbling, swerved his truck on his right side, but one of the cyclists fell down immediately after the truck had crossed him. The conductor of the truck asked the driver to stop the truck and when they both came down, the driver was told by the conductor that one of the cyclists had already expired on account of impact with pebbles on the road or with the handle of the cycle. ( 10 ) THIS defence, if accepted, would prove that the deceased was carrying a heavy load of articles on his cycle. It would also show that the death of the deceased was due to his fall on the ground and consequent impact with hard surface of the road or the handle of the cycle. The defence is totally falsified by the medical evidence of Dr. G. S. Mittal, Police Surgeon, Delhi, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased at a time when even his identity had not been established. According to Dr. Mittal's statement, he found the following injuries on the body of the deceased : 1. Contused would 1" long on right side face. 2. Right ear torn at two places. 3. Multiple medium-sized abrasions on various parts of the body. Dr. Mittal further stated that there were multiple fractures of all ribs on both sides at more than one place along the fracture of sternum. The chest cavity of the deceased was completely distorted in shape. Lungs, heart and liver were torn at several places and both kidneys were also torn. Multiple medium-sized abrasions on various parts of the body. Dr. Mittal further stated that there were multiple fractures of all ribs on both sides at more than one place along the fracture of sternum. The chest cavity of the deceased was completely distorted in shape. Lungs, heart and liver were torn at several places and both kidneys were also torn. There was fracture of dorsal spine at the level of 5th and 6th vertebrae with marked displacement and complete severing of the spinal cord. There was fracture of pubic ramus both sides and there was also fractured dislocation of both sacro-ilia joints with effusion of the blood around. There was fractured dislocation of half survical vertebra and there was effusion of blood in the chest wall on both sides, front and back. Be further stated that these injuries were possible by a road-side vehicular accident, i e. wheel passing across the trunk, and denied the suggestion in cross-examination that these injuries could be as a result of fall on road surface from a fast moving cycle loaded with weight. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants made much capital out of the admission made by the investigating officer that he found some bags and a tin on the spot, of which he took possession on arriving at the scene of occurrence and urged that this clearly established that the deceased was riding a cycle which was over-loaded with bags and a tin, as alleged by the driver of the truck. The statement of the investigating officer, however, makes it clear that the tin found on the spot was empty and it was not suggested to the witness that any sugarcane juice was found spilt at the scene. No question was also put to him about the contents of the bags. In my opinion, the evidence of Dr. Mittal completely destroys the defence set up by the appellants that there was no impact between the truck and the deceased, and that the deceased had sustained injuries on coming into contact with the hard surface of the road and the pebbles lying on it. It is impossible that such serious internal injuries could have been caused except by the deceased having been run over by the wheel of the truck. It is impossible that such serious internal injuries could have been caused except by the deceased having been run over by the wheel of the truck. Had there been no impact, there was no possibility of multiple fracture of the ribs on both sides at more than one place and serious injuries to lungs, heart, liver, and kidney, etc. I have, therefore, no hesitation in agreeing with the Tribunal in holding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle on the part of Chiranji Lal driver. ( 12 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant relates to the quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal. The only item to which objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants relates to the deduction of Rs. 250. 00 on account of value of the house at Phagwara left by the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal having fixed the market price of the house at Rs. 2,000. 00 should have allowed the whole of this amount to be deducted and thus the total deductions should be Rs. 3,663. 00 instead of Rs. 1,913. 00 allowed by the Tribunal. The argument has no substance. The appellants did not challenge the market price of the house determined by the Tribunal. Thatbeing so, the only difference which the death of the deceased has made is that there is acceleration of succession in favour of the respondents. All that has happened is that the house which they would have inherited after the death of the deceased has come into their hands 12 years earlier. The Tribunal was, therefore, fully justified in deducting only a portion of the market price from the total price of Rs. 2,000. 00. It may be that instead of deducting Rs. 250. 00 the Tribunal might have deducted a few hundred rupees more or less but that is hardly a ground on which the Tribunal's decision can be interfered with in appeal. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. ( 14 ) THE respondents being dissatisfied with amount awarded to them by the Tribunal have filed cross-objections. The main ground urged by Mr. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. ( 14 ) THE respondents being dissatisfied with amount awarded to them by the Tribunal have filed cross-objections. The main ground urged by Mr. D. D. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, is that the Tribunal was in error in holding that there was no likelihood of the deceased being promoted as a Lower Division Clerk in the near future which would , have entitled him to draw more than Rs. 200. 00 per mensem as his salary and allowances. Learned counsel has also contended that the evidence about the deceased's income as a tailor had been wrongly rejected by the Tribunal. Learned counsel argued that the assessment of the deceased's income at Rs. 130. 00 per mensem was a gross under-estimate and, therefore, the Tribunal should have awarded the full amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 claimed by the respondents. ( 15 ) I find no merit in the cross-objections. The Tribunal has rightly held that if for nine years the deceased had not been able to earn his promotion from the post of Laboratory Assistant to that of a Lower Division Clerk, there was hardly any likelihood of his being promoted hereafter. In any case, there was no satisfactory evidence to establish the respondent's claim in that behalf. The Tribunal was also right in rejecting the respondents' allegation that the deceased was earning anything by working as a tailor after office hours. The estimate of the deceased's income, by and large, appears to me to be quite reasonable and fair, and I cannot accept the suggestion that there is any under-assessment of the compensation by the Tribunal. ( 16 ) THE result is that the cross-objections also fail and are dismissed with costs. HARDAYAL HARDY ( 1 ) THE appellants Chiranji Lal, Ramji Dass, and the Vanguard Insurance Company Ltd. were respondents in an application under section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, filed by the heirs and legal representatives of one Dalip Singh claiming Rs. 50,000. 00 as compensation on account of the death of Dalip Singh. The application was allowed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, who gave an award for Rs. 9,942. 00 in their favour. The present appeal is directed against that award. 50,000. 00 as compensation on account of the death of Dalip Singh. The application was allowed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, who gave an award for Rs. 9,942. 00 in their favour. The present appeal is directed against that award. ( 2 ) DALIP Singh was working as a Laboratory Assistant in the College of Nursing at New Delhi. He met with an accident on Mathura Road, near Friends Colony, New Delhi, at about 5-30 P. M. on January 12,1962, when he was knocked down by truck No. DLG 2267 which was toeing driven by Chiranji Lal, appellant No. 1, and was owned by Ramji Das, appellant No. 2. The vehicle was insured with appellant No. 3, the Vanguard Insurance Company Ltd. , Madras. Dalip Singh died on the spot as a result of injuries received by him. As already stated, the respondents are heirs and legal representatives of the deceased and have thus suffered a loss on account of his death. ( 3 ) TWO contentions have been raised before me by Mr. H. S. Dhir, learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention urged by Mr. Dhir is that there is complete lack of evidence to establish that the motor vehicle involved in the accident was being driven rashly and negligently. In order to prove the motor driver s negligence, the respondents examined two eye-witnesses besides the Investigating Officer and the doctor, who performed the post mortem examination on the dead-body of Dalip Singh. The first eye-witness Gurdev Singh (P. W. 2) stated that he was coming from Okhla on his cycle when he saw Dalip Singh deceased about 25 to 30 paces ahead of him. He deposed that a truck came from behind at great speed and after crossing him knocked down Dalip Singh who was run over by the front wheel of the truck. The truck stopped at a distance of 30 to 40 yards away from the place where Dalip Singh was knocked down and that Dalip Singh died on the spot. He also stated that the driver did not give any horn. In cross- examination he stated that Dalip Singh was not carrying anything on his cycle and that he did not see any tin or bags on the cycle. He denied the suggestion that Dalip Singh could not control his cycle and, therefore, fell down. He also stated that the driver did not give any horn. In cross- examination he stated that Dalip Singh was not carrying anything on his cycle and that he did not see any tin or bags on the cycle. He denied the suggestion that Dalip Singh could not control his cycle and, therefore, fell down. He, however, admitted that he neither lodged a report with the police nor was he examined by the police in the criminal Court. He also stated that the police did not come on the scene in his presence. He, however, stated that two days after the accident he went to the police station, Lajpat Nagar, to find out the address of the deceased and that he then went to the house of the deceased where he gave his address to the relations of the deceased. I agree with Mr. Dhir that the evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence and although the Tribunal did not say so in so many words no reliance appears to have been placed on his testimony by the Tribunal too. ( 4 ) THE next witness Sarup Singh (Public Witness. 5) who investigated the case, has obviously no direct knowledge about the accident. His evidence is that he took possession of the truck, the cycle, and the turban of the deceased, some empty bags and a tin when he reached the spot. He prepared the inquest report and sent the dead-body for post mortem examination where the deceased was identified after two days of the accident. He stated that he reached the spot at 6. 30 P. M. and found Santokh Singh who claimed to be an eye-witness of the accident. As regards the other eye-witness be stated that he came on the spot afterwards without being summoned by him. He recorded the statements of Santokh Singh, Dharam Pal and Sajjan Singh on the spot, got the scene photographed and prepared the site plan, a copy of which is Exhibit Public Witness 5/2. He denied the suggestion that the road was divided into two parts, one part being meant for slow moving traffic and the other for fast moving traffic, but he admitted that the dead-body was lying in the centre of the road. ( 5 ) DHARAM Pal (Public Witness 6) is the second eye-witness in the case. He stated that on l2th January, 1962, at about 5. ( 5 ) DHARAM Pal (Public Witness 6) is the second eye-witness in the case. He stated that on l2th January, 1962, at about 5. 30 P. M. , he was going to the Scout Headquarters from Suraj Kund when he saw a Sikh gentleman going on a cycle 15 to 20 yards ahead of him. A truck came from behind at a fast speed and knocked down the cyclist who fell down and died on the spot. He further stated that he went to his Head-quarters but returned to the spot after five minutes and that he did not hear any horn. His statement was recorded by the police on the same day. He is a retired railway guard and could, therefore, judge the speed of a moving object. He deposed that the truck was being driven at a fast speed which he estimated at about 40 miles per hour. In cross-examination, he deposed that he had an urgent work at Scout Headquarters and, therefore, did not stop at the scene of occurrence when be first saw the accident but he returned soon after and was present when police arrived on the scene and his statement was recorded. He also stated that the deceased was two feet inside from the left edge of the road when the accident occurred. The record of his statement, however, shows that he stated that the deceased was not run over by the truck. ( 6 ) IT is the evidence of Dharam Pal which has largely weighed with the Tribunal in coming to his conclusion that the death of the deceased was a direct result of the negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. Learned counsel for the appellants has, therefore, concentrated his attack on the testimony of this witness and has urged that he could not have been present at the time of occurrence otherwise it is highly improbable that a person, who is connected with the Scout Movement, would have gone away from the scene after he had seen a man knocked down by a truck in his presence. It is also improbable that he did not inform the police about the accident when he knew that the police post was so near the place of accident nor did he telephone them from the Scout Headquarters which he could easily do. It is also improbable that he did not inform the police about the accident when he knew that the police post was so near the place of accident nor did he telephone them from the Scout Headquarters which he could easily do. The most vital part of his evidence, according to the learned counsel, however, lies in the witness s statement to the effect that the deceased was not run over by the truck. Learned counsel argued that this clearly supported the truck driver s version of the accident. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel s criticism is not wholly without substance. But whatever lurking doubt one may have with regard to the presence of this witness at the time of accident, it is counter-balanced by the fact that the witness is in no way connected with the deceased or his relations. He made his statement before the police that very day on the spot. He has explained that he was in a great hurry to reach the Scout Headquarters and, therefore, did not stop at the scene of occurrence. He, however, returned to the spot within five minutes. It is not uncommon that a person, who is out on some urgent errand, suddenly comes upon an accident on the way ; instead of waiting for the police to arrive on the scene, he first proceeds to complete the errand and then returns to the scene as quickly as possible. The very fact that the witness returned to the scene within a few minutes after he completed his errand, may well be attributed to his back-ground as a Scout. Another man in his place might have perhaps not even given a second thought to what he had seen. There is also nothing strange about his omission to inform the police. He might have as well thought that since he was returning to the scene within a few minutes he would see on his return if there was anything to be done in that connection. ( 8 ) THAT portion of his statement in which he says that the deceased was not run over by the truck nevertheless gave me some food for thought. It was found that the statement was recorded in Urdu. I, therefore, personally examined the record to ascertain the precise words used by him. ( 8 ) THAT portion of his statement in which he says that the deceased was not run over by the truck nevertheless gave me some food for thought. It was found that the statement was recorded in Urdu. I, therefore, personally examined the record to ascertain the precise words used by him. The statement as recorded reads : "the deceased was not run over by the truck. " The use of the word "not" appears to me to be wholly repugnant in the context and appears to be an obvious error in writing because the sentence "the deceased was not run over by the truck" is followed by the sentence which translated into English, reads : "the truck did not strike any other person. "the two sentences read together clearly imply that what the witness meant to convey was that the truck did run over the deceased, but it did not strike against any other person. While dealing with this statement, the Tribunal has no doubt accepted as if the, witness has stated that the deceased was not run over by the truck but according to the Tribunal this did not make much difference because the witness was making his statement after about three years and the existence of such a statement rather established that he was not a tutored witness. Whatever view of the evidence of this witness one may take, one thing is certain that the witness has no interest at all to tell a lie, that he was present at the time of the accident and that he saw the deceased being knocked down by the truck which was being driven at a fast speed. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in accepting the testimony of this witness and I am in complete agreement with him on the point. ( 9 ) THE defence set up by the driver of the vehicle, which indeed is also the defence of all the appellants in these proceedings, was that the deceased was going on a cycle which was loaded with a tin full of sugar- cane juice on the carrier and two bags of sugarcane hanging on to the handle-bar of the cycle and that one other person, who was also on cycle, was going along side the deceased. He too was carrying a bag full of articles on his carrier. He too was carrying a bag full of articles on his carrier. Both the cyclists could not balance their machines and sundenly collided with each other. The driver of the truck, who saw the cyclists wobbling, swerved his truck on his right side, but one of the cyclists fell down immediately after the truck had crossed him. The conductor of the truck asked the driver to stop the truck and when they both came down, the driver was told by the conductor that one of the cyclists had already expired on account of impact with pebbles on the road or with the handle of the cycle. ( 10 ) THIS defence, if accepted, would prove that the deceased was carrying a heavy load of articles on his cycle. It would also show that the death of the deceased was due to his fall on the ground and consequent impact with hard surface of the road or the handle of the cycle. The defence is totally falsified by the medical evidence of Dr. G. S. Mittal, Police Surgeon, Delhi, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased at a time when even his identity had not been established. According to Dr. Mittal s statement, he found the following injuries on the body of the deceased : 1. Contused would 1" long on right side face. 2. Right ear torn at two places. 3. Multiple medium-sized abrasions on various parts of the body. Dr. Mittal further stated that there were multiple fractures of all ribs on both sides at more than one place along the fracture of sternum. The chest cavity of the deceased was completely distorted in shape. Lungs, heart and liver were torn at several places and both kidneys were also torn. There was fracture of dorsal spine at the level of 5th and 6th vertebrae with marked displacement and complete severing of the spinal cord. There was fracture of pubic ramus both sides and there was also fractured dislocation of both sacro-ilia joints with effusion of the blood around. There was fractured dislocation of half survical vertebra and there was effusion of blood in the chest wall on both sides, front and back. There was fracture of pubic ramus both sides and there was also fractured dislocation of both sacro-ilia joints with effusion of the blood around. There was fractured dislocation of half survical vertebra and there was effusion of blood in the chest wall on both sides, front and back. Be further stated that these injuries were possible by a road-side vehicular accident, i e. wheel passing across the trunk, and denied the suggestion in cross-examination that these injuries could be as a result of fall on road surface from a fast moving cycle loaded with weight. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants made much capital out of the admission made by the investigating officer that he found some bags and a tin on the spot, of which he took possession on arriving at the scene of occurrence and urged that this clearly established that the deceased was riding a cycle which was over-loaded with bags and a tin, as alleged by the driver of the truck. The statement of the investigating officer, however, makes it clear that the tin found on the spot was empty and it was not suggested to the witness that any sugarcane juice was found spilt at the scene. No question was also put to him about the contents of the bags. In my opinion, the evidence of Dr. Mittal completely destroys the defence set up by the appellants that there was no impact between the truck and the deceased, and that the deceased had sustained injuries on coming into contact with the hard surface of the road and the pebbles lying on it. It is impossible that such serious internal injuries could have been caused except by the deceased having been run over by the wheel of the truck. Had there been no impact, there was no possibility of multiple fracture of the ribs on both sides at more than one place and serious injuries to lungs, heart, liver, and kidney, etc. I have, therefore, no hesitation in agreeing with the Tribunal in holding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle on the part of Chiranji Lal driver. ( 12 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant relates to the quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal. I have, therefore, no hesitation in agreeing with the Tribunal in holding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle on the part of Chiranji Lal driver. ( 12 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant relates to the quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal. The only item to which objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants relates to the deduction of Rs. 250. 00 on account of value of the house at Phagwara left by the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal having fixed the market price of the house at Rs. 2,000. 00 should have allowed the whole of this amount to be deducted and thus the total deductions should be Rs. 3,663. 00 instead of Rs. 1,913. 00 allowed by the Tribunal. The argument has no substance. The appellants did not challenge the market price of the house determined by the Tribunal. Thatbeing so, the only difference which the death of the deceased has made is that there is acceleration of succession in favour of the respondents. All that has happened is that the house which they would have inherited after the death of the deceased has come into their hands 12 years earlier. The Tribunal was, therefore, fully justified in deducting only a portion of the market price from the total price of Rs. 2,000. 00. It may be that instead of deducting Rs. 250. 00 the Tribunal might have deducted a few hundred rupees more or less but that is hardly a ground on which the Tribunal s decision can be interfered with in appeal. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. ( 14 ) THE respondents being dissatisfied with amount awarded to them by the Tribunal have filed cross-objections. The main ground urged by Mr. D. D. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, is that the Tribunal was in error in holding that there was no likelihood of the deceased being promoted as a Lower Division Clerk in the near future which would , have entitled him to draw more than Rs. 200. 00 per mensem as his salary and allowances. Learned counsel has also contended that the evidence about the deceased s income as a tailor had been wrongly rejected by the Tribunal. 200. 00 per mensem as his salary and allowances. Learned counsel has also contended that the evidence about the deceased s income as a tailor had been wrongly rejected by the Tribunal. Learned counsel argued that the assessment of the deceased s income at Rs. 130. 00 per mensem was a gross under-estimate and, therefore, the Tribunal should have awarded the full amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 claimed by the respondents. ( 15 ) I find no merit in the cross-objections. The Tribunal has rightly held that if for nine years the deceased had not been able to earn his promotion from the post of Laboratory Assistant to that of a Lower Division Clerk, there was hardly any likelihood of his being promoted hereafter. In any case, there was no satisfactory evidence to establish the respondent s claim in that behalf. The Tribunal was also right in rejecting the respondents allegation that the deceased was earning anything by working as a tailor after office hours. The estimate of the deceased s income, by and large, appears to me to be quite reasonable and fair, and I cannot accept the suggestion that there is any under-assessment of the compensation by the Tribunal. ( 16 ) THE result is that the cross-objections also fail and are dismissed with costs.