Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2261 (RAJ)

Arjun Singh v. Rajbir Singh

2009-11-03

A.N.JINDAL

body2009
Hon'ble JINDAL, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.9.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (herein referred as `the Tribunal') dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants (herein referred as `the claimant') for seeking compensation qua the death of Gurmukh Singh, aged about 22 years in a motor vehicular accident. 2. Version of the claimants is that their unmarried son namely Gurmukh Singh had gone to Jaipur (Ajmer) while taking the tractor. On 31.7.1992, at about 1.00 a.m. he reached near the village Atela, in the meantime, a bus bearing registration No. HY-12-86-1, driven by the respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently struck against the tractor (Swaraz) Gurmukh Singh fell down and ultimately succumbed to his injuries. Balwinder Singh, who was on the tractor attached with the tractor of Gumukh Singh, reported the matter to the police vide FIR No. 297 dated 31.7.1992 in Police Station Shahpur, District Jaipur. The dead body after postmortem examination was brought to his home town. The deceased was earning Rs. 6000/- per month. The claimants being parents has sought compensation on account of untimely death of Gurmukh Singh. 3. The respondents contested the claim petition submitted that it was not maintain able and the facts as narrated by the claimants are not correct. While admitting the accident, the respondents submitted that during the night of 31.7.1992, at about 1.00 a.m. when the respondent No. 1 while driving the bus reached near village Atela, then on the request and at the instance of the passengers for urinating and answering the call of nature, he stopped the bus. In the meantime, the deceased while driving tractor, while toeing another trator reached the spot and struck against the stationery bus. It was further added that the compensation as claimed is exorbitant. 4. The respondent No. 2 in his written statement has admitted that the bus in question was of Haryana Roadways. However, it was submitted that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor of the deceased. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed- "1. Whether respondent No. 1 while driving but No. HY-12-8601 rashly and negligently caused the accident resulting into the death of Gurmukh Singh? OPA 2. To what extent of compensation applicants are entitled? OPA 3. Relief." Both the parties led evidence. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed- "1. Whether respondent No. 1 while driving but No. HY-12-8601 rashly and negligently caused the accident resulting into the death of Gurmukh Singh? OPA 2. To what extent of compensation applicants are entitled? OPA 3. Relief." Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately the Tribunal while holding that the accident did not take place in the manner as described by the claimants and the tractor hit the stationery bus, dismissed the claim petition. 6. The identity of the respondent No. 1 and he being on the steering wheel of the offending bus bearing registration No. HR-12-8601 on the date of accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased on one tractor along with Balwinder Singh on the toed tractor were going to Jaipur and the accident took place near village Atela is also not in dispute. The case of the claimants is that when the deceased along with Balwinder Singh were coming on their tractor to Jaipur, then the respondent No. 1 struck its bus while driving it rashly and negligently against the tractor of Gurmukh Singh, whereas, the case of the respondents is that when the respondent No. 1 had stopped the bus for allowing the passengers for urinating and to go for call of nature, the tractor driver came in a zig zag manner and struck against the stationery bus. Now the question remained to be determined "as to which out of the two versions is correct?" Presence of Balwinder Singh has not been disputed and the same is also proved from the FIR No. 297 dated 31.7.1992 and he has depicted the incident in all minute details while finding fault with the respondent No.1. Against this initial version, as given in the FIR (Ex. P.1), the respondents have not led any evidence to rebut the same. Not only the testimony of Balwinder Singh is there to support the version of the claimants but the photographs also led corroboration to prove the fact that the bus driver while driving it rashly and negligently run over the front wheel of the tractor and tried to crush the rear wheel as a result of which Gurmukh Singh fell down and died. As per photograph Ex. As per photograph Ex. R-1 tractors are shown to be going on their correct side, whereas, the bus, came on its wrong side. Had it been the case of head on collusion, then the front portion of the tractor including the engine would have struck against the bus causing damage to the front portion as well as engine of the bus. Photographs show that no damage was caused to the front portion including the front glass and the engine of the bus. The case was duly investigated by the police. Final report (Ex. R-3) was prepared against the respondent No. 1. Balwinder Singh while appearing as PW.1 has also fully corroborated the version as set up by the claimants. To the contrary, had there been any truth in the version as set up by the respondents, then the respondent No. 1 would have immediately informed the police about the fault on the part of the tractor driver, as he knew fully well about the consequences of the accident, whereas, Gurmukh Singh had died and the tractor had been damaged. His silence over the yeas qua the incident invites me to draw an inference against the respondent No.1. The story with regard to hitting of the bus if examined from another angle is found to be not correct. The photographs do not reveal if it was a case of head on collusion. Had the deceased struck against the stationary bus, then front portion of the bus would have damaged, but it is the right portion of the bus which has been damaged on account of the accident. While going to the worst, assuming for the sake of arguments, if story as set up by the respondent is taken as correct, though there are no reasons for doing so, yet, the respondent No. 1 was negligent in parking the bus on the road itself. It was his duty to take the bus on the extreme left side of the road on the kacha berm and parked the same. Nothing has been stated in the written statement filed that the respondent No.1 had parked the bus on the kacha berm of the road and the deceased along with tractor came on the kacha berm of the road and struck against the bus. No rules are providing to park the bus on the road itself. Nothing has been stated in the written statement filed that the respondent No.1 had parked the bus on the kacha berm of the road and the deceased along with tractor came on the kacha berm of the road and struck against the bus. No rules are providing to park the bus on the road itself. As such, the respondent No.1 could be said to be negligent qua this aspect of the case. As such, while taking the case from another angle, the findings returned by the Tribunal qua issue No. 1 need to be reversed. The Tribunal has taken wrong view of the matter without appreciating the evidence in the right perspective, therefore, interference in the impugned order has become inevitable at my end. 7. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, the deceased being driver in those days i.e., in 1992, must not be earning more than Rs. 2000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of his income which he must be contributing towards himself, the net dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 15000/- per annum. It has come in evidence that Arjun Singh father of the deceased was 53 years old at the time of incident, therefore, in the given circumstances of the case, the multiplier of 11 could be suitably applied. Thus, while calculating the compensation on the aforesaid parameters, the net compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 1,65,000/-. In addition to it, since Gurmukh Singh had died far away from his home town, therefore, they must have spent much amount for transporting his dead body to his home town. Similarly, some amount has been spent on the funeral as well as last rites as such it would not be unsafe to determine a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid against the aforesaid heads. As such, issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the claimants in the aforesaid terms. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I hereby accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and accept the claim petition while awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,85,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization of the award amount.