M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) I have heard both the learned Advocates at some length and perused the record of the case, in particular the sketch as also the report of the Inspector with regard to the relative damage to the two vehicles. Mr. Srinivasan, learned Advocate who represents the appellants has briefly referred to the facts of the case because he submits that these are of some importance. The Van which belonged to the Wheel and Axle Plant of the Railways was proceeding towards Makhri Circle and it is the case of the driver that there was a bullock-cart in front and therefore, he had to slow down as there was an on-coming truck in the opposite direction. He states that all of a sudden, there was an impact at the rear of the Van and he stopped the same and got down to find that an Enfield Motor Cycle was fallen there in a damaged condition after having collided against the side of the Van towards the rear of it. The rider had fallen in an injured condition and he was immediately rushed to the hospital where he subsequently died. The sketch confirms the position that the impact was towards the rear of the van on the left side as there were damage marks on the body of the van and on the right side front of the motor cycle. Mr. Srinivasan submitted that this material is totally compatible with his submission that the motor-cyclist was obviously riding at a very fast speed and that he was unable to control the vehicle at that speed and collided against the side of the van. His contention is that even if there is some liability on the appellants, that the Court will have to guage the level of contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle for purposes of ascertaining to what extent the amount computed by the Tribunal must be reduced. Learned Advocate submitted that on the facts of the present case, there can be no dispute about the fact that the deceased had contributed equally to what happened and to this extent, his submission was that the compensation awarded will have to be scaled down by 50%. Learned Advocate submitted that on the facts of the present case, there can be no dispute about the fact that the deceased had contributed equally to what happened and to this extent, his submission was that the compensation awarded will have to be scaled down by 50%. His contention is that the evidence of the driver and the occupants of the van supports the theory of contributory negligence and he also points out to me that there was some infirmity in the evidence of P. W. 1 on whom the Tribunal has placed heavy reliance. ( 2 ) THE respondents' learned Advocate has vehemently refuted this position. He points out that this is a case in which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor or in other words that the facts speak for themselves will have to be applied. He points out to me that if the theory advanced by the appellants' learned Advocate is to be accepted, that the impact would have been on the back of the van and not at the side of it. He has relied heavily on the evidence of P. W. 1 who is a totally disinterested and independent person, who has also stated that the van was travelling fast, that the driver decided to over-take the cart and when he found at the last minute that he could not do so, that he had no option except to change his line and swerve back to the left side of the road and virtually got into the line of movement of the motor cycle rider. Learned Advocate submits that this is the only explanation for the manner in which the collision took place and more importantly, for the point of impact being on the side of the van. He points out that this is a case in which the deceased would have normally expected the van to overtake the cart but however there was a sudden alteration in the movement of the van and it changed direction, that the inevitable result was that the deceased had no time to take corrective steps and was hit by the side of the offending vehicle. ( 3 ) I do agree with the appellants' learned Advocate that the evidence will have to be correctly evaluated for purposes of deciding as to whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the two wheeler rider. ( 3 ) I do agree with the appellants' learned Advocate that the evidence will have to be correctly evaluated for purposes of deciding as to whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the two wheeler rider. While it is true that there is a tendency on the part of the two wheeler rider not to confine themselves to the left side of the road as the Rules of the road require, and to indiscriminately wander of without observing any modicum of lane discipline, the Court is required to take equal notice of the manner in which vehicles decide to overtake even when such a course of action is contra indicated. We do not have on record any definite indication of the speed of the motor cycle or the manner in which it was being ridden because it was following the van and nobody seems to have observed it. We do however have very definite evidence on record that the van which was travelling relatively fast had decided to overtake the bullock-cart which was down right a wrong decision particularly in a City when there is plenty of cross traffic the road in question was a busy one and the law requires that the driver of the van had to exercise enough of patience until there was enough of clear road to permit him to overtake safely. The driver had totally disregarded the Rules of the road, he had totally disregarded the cannons of safety and he still attempted to over-take the bullock-cart regardless of the on-coming truck and when he realised at the last minute that this would not be possible as often happens, he dangerously re-traced his steps back to the left side of the road without bothering to take notice of the fact there was a motor cycle following him. ( 4 ) THERE are safety procedures which are mandatory as far as vehicle drivers are concerned and there are requirements of law which postulate that a vehicle can only over-take another, provided there is enough of a clear road to safely cross-over to the right side, over-take and thereafter come back to the left side of the road without again dangerously cutting into the line of movement of the vehicle that has been over-taken. The first requirement in such cases is that there must be more than enough of clear uninterrupted roadway ahead before the decision to over-take is implemented. Overtaking dangerously has become the order of the day and this has resulted in very serious head on collisions principally because the well established sefety cannons have been breached. This is a case in which an attempt to over-take was made when there was no clear roadway ahead, that decision was aborted and the direct result of this rash and negligent act was that the rear of the van hit the motor cycle. It is necessary, having regard to the large number of instances where dangerous overtaking has resulted in head on collisions on the one hand and serious accidents to the vehicles travelling on the left side of the road on the other, that the drivers of the over-taking vehicles often do not care to observe whether the left side of the road is clear and more importantly, whether a vehicle of that size and length can safely get through without having an impact with the other vehicles even on the same side of the road. This situation has arisen unfortunately due to the non-enforcement of the regulations in relation to traffic movement. The impression as far as the traffic Police are concerned, appears to be that action is required to be taken only after an accident has taken place, the law requries the opposite in so far as the principal purpose of maintaining the traffic Police force is in order to take preventive action by booking and severely punishing persons who indulge in rash and negligent driving particularly dangerous overtaking. The time has now come having regard to the number of deaths and injuries that have taken place for stringent measures to be adopted in order to prevent instances of the present type by imposing examplary punishments on the offenders as also on the members of the police force who through their indolence have encouraged such reckless acts. ( 5 ) COMING back to the facts of the present case, even though Mr. Srinivasan has vehemently submitted that the evidence is compatible with the theory of contributory negligence, I need to observe that stronger evidence would be necessary in order to bring home that charge. ( 5 ) COMING back to the facts of the present case, even though Mr. Srinivasan has vehemently submitted that the evidence is compatible with the theory of contributory negligence, I need to observe that stronger evidence would be necessary in order to bring home that charge. On the state of the present record, it would not be possible to foist any such charge or finding on the deceased as this evidence would not justify it. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid position, there is no ground on which this Court can interfere with the award made by the Tribunal. The appellants have paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- originally and have thereafter deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- plus proportionate interest at the time of the admission of this appeal. These amounts shall be taken into consideration while computing the balance amount payable by the appellants. The balance amount shall be deposited with the Tribunal within an outer limit of 12 weeks from today. ( 7 ) IN keeping with the earlier directions, two sums of Rs. 14,000/- each were deposited with the Bank. The son having attained majority, one amount of Rs. 14,000/- has been released to him along with accrued interest, if any. It is directed that the Tribunal shall pay-over to the 2nd respondent-son the equivalent of Rs. 16,000/- along with proportionate interest. The Tribunal shall deposit with the same Bank as an additional Fixed Deposit a sum of Rs. 16,000/- in addition to the earlier amount of Rs. 14,000/- that is deposited. These two amounts shall be treated as long term fixed deposits and shall be invested for the longest periods paying maximum interest. In supersession of the earlier orders, the interest on these two fixed deposits shall be compounded and the aggregate amount shall be paid-over to the 3rd respondent who is the younger son on his attaining majority without any further directions from this Court or the Tribunal, the balance amount shall be paid-over to the 1st respondent-wife. ( 8 ) MR. Srinivasan raised one other point namely that the Police who investigated into the matter had charge-sheeted the deceased for rash and negligent driving and he submits that this clearly shows that the investigating authorities found the deceased to be the offending party. ( 8 ) MR. Srinivasan raised one other point namely that the Police who investigated into the matter had charge-sheeted the deceased for rash and negligent driving and he submits that this clearly shows that the investigating authorities found the deceased to be the offending party. The fact that the Police did charge-sheet the rider of the motor cycle is a circumstance undoubtedly in favour of the appellants but that proceeding did not make any headway principally because of the death and under these circumstances, I am not inclined to uphold the theory of contributory negligence on the basis of one such circumstance alone. ( 9 ) ON the question of quantum, several submissions were made on behalf of the appellants particularly with regard to the computation of the revised pay scale. I have examined these submissions but to my mind, none of them are liable to be upheld nor is the computation done by the Tribunal liable to be disturbed. ( 10 ) THE appeal accordingly fails and stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .