Judgment :- 1. “SPEED” – We can enjoy it on the screen as Hollywood movie. Can we enjoy the same on the road? Certainly not. The speed of a vehicle caused the ghastly accident in which first respondent sustained the following: (1) His Penis was crushed, making him unfit to get married. (2) Testicles sustained injuries leading to remove of the testicles. (3) Left leg was completely damaged and amputated from the thigh region. (4) Fracture in the right leg. (5) Urinary bladder completely reptured resulting in infection/urinary problems regularly. (6) Severe contusion on the chest, hip. (7) Fracture of b ones in the hip leading to reduction in movement of hip joint which made him unable to sit, squat and stand without crutches. (8) Sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body especially on the stomach. (9) Scar in the left hand due to deep injury, etc. (2) The above conditions of the victim would move anybody. What was the wrong committed by the victim/first respondent? Was it a sin to have come out of his house and walked on the road? If anybody wants to remain as a bachelor, throughout his life because of “The speed” which caused the accident. Is not “violation of Human Right”? Definitely, it is. 3. The aforesaid condition would speak volumes about the magnitude of the accident. The pain and suffering which the claimant did suffer would be beyond one’s imagination. This court has not come across, a case in which a vegetable. There may be cases of death in accidents where the life would have ended within a fraction of second, where as in this case, the victim viz. first respondent/claimant suffered various multiple grievous injuries, which continue to cause pain, suffering and agony. 4. This Court wants every one of us to know the story of an innocent bachelor who was walking on the road when the tractor driven very speedily in rash and negligent manner hit him behind and ran over him. In what way the innocent victim was responsible? 5. Theaccident occurred on 21.02.2002 when the first respondent/claimant was walking on the road, the tractor drove it in ‘uncontrollable speed’ , rash and negligent manner and dashed against the first respondent behind him and ran over him, causing the above injuries. 6. In what way the innocent victim was responsible? 5. Theaccident occurred on 21.02.2002 when the first respondent/claimant was walking on the road, the tractor drove it in ‘uncontrollable speed’ , rash and negligent manner and dashed against the first respondent behind him and ran over him, causing the above injuries. 6. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to Government Hospital, Manapparai and was referred to Government Head quarters Hospital, Tiruchirapalli, where he was treated for more than two months. Many surgeries were done. The claimant’s penis was crushed and reunited by plastic surgery, Penis lost its natural functions including sensation completely and it is incapable of functioning except serve like a plastic tube; Testicles were removed; the claimant has been having continuous urinary problem, since his urinal bladder was ruptured. His left leg got amputated; Right leg sustained fracture. He has been regularly having stomach pain and is unable to lift his left leg. The claimant seems to be paralysed permanently and disabled totally and he has to depend on others even for his day to day activities. 7. Theclaim of the first respondent before the Tribunal was that he was a coolie earning about Rs.4,500/- per month and claimed compensation for the injuries and for loss of marital prospects. The appellant/Insurance Company filed counter statement contesting the claim before the Tribunal. The claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Doctor was examined as P.W2 and the documents Ex.P1 to P8 were marked on the side of the claimant. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the appellant/Insurance Company. 8. On appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the tractor alone was responsible for the accident as it was driven speedily and rash and negligent manner. As far as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.2,500/ and fixed the disability at 90% and the age as 30 and adopted multiplier “17”. A sum of Rs.7,11,000/-was awarded in the following manner: For Loss of Income For Transportation For Extra Nourishment For Medical Expenses For Pain & Sufferings For Disability at 90% Total Rs.4,59,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,80,000/- Rs.7,11,000 The aforesaid award is being challenged before this Court by the Insurance Company. 9. Mr. A sum of Rs.7,11,000/-was awarded in the following manner: For Loss of Income For Transportation For Extra Nourishment For Medical Expenses For Pain & Sufferings For Disability at 90% Total Rs.4,59,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,80,000/- Rs.7,11,000 The aforesaid award is being challenged before this Court by the Insurance Company. 9. Mr. Vijay Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident. He further submitted that the challenge is only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the findings regarding negligence given by the Tribunal is not challenged and in any event, the Tribunal’s finding regarding the negligence was based on evidence as discussed in para 6 of the award and it cannot be disturbed and the same is confirmed. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant found fault with the award regarding Loss of Income Rs.4,59,000/- contending that there was an arithmetical mistake in arriving at Loss of Income, According to him, the loss of income would be Rs.2,500/- x 12 x 17 – 1/3 = Rs.3,06,000/-. Hence he pleaded for award of Rs.3,06,000/- towards loss of income instead of Rs.4,59,000/- as given by the Tribunal. He also assailed the award in respect of the amount given towards the disability contending that when the Loss of Income was calculated as per the II Schedule, there could not be any double payment by awarding towards disability. Hence, he insisted for deletion of amount awarded towards disability. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Prasanna Vinoth, learned counsel for the claimant contended that the nature of injuries and the gravity of the injuries made the claimant as vegetable. He further submitted that the victim could not even look after his personal works and he has to depend upon others for the same and in that event, the compensation granted by the Tribunal is reasonable and has to be confirmed. 12. It is a rare among the rarest case and definitely a very serious case, which is treated and decided accordingly. In this case, the nature of injuries and the condition of the claimant would show that, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant, is nothing but a vegetable for all practical purposes. P.W2 doctor’s evidence and the medical records would also indisputably prove that an human being getting reduced to vegetable status. 13. In this case, the nature of injuries and the condition of the claimant would show that, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant, is nothing but a vegetable for all practical purposes. P.W2 doctor’s evidence and the medical records would also indisputably prove that an human being getting reduced to vegetable status. 13. The case of the injured was that he was earning about Rs.4,500/- per month. However, in the absence of any material documents and proof, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.2,500/-. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalpana (Smt.) and others, 2007 (1) CTC 523; 2007(3) SCC 538 held in the absence of any material about income of the victim the monthly contribution of the victim to the family, after deduction towards Personal Expenses, was fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court and considering the pitiable condition of the claimant and also the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court fixes his loss of monthly income after deductions one third towards. Personal Expenses at Rs.3,000/-. Even otherwise, considering the status of the injured, no amount could be deducted towards Personal Expenses. This Court’s view is supported by Apex Court Judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramprasad Varma, 2009 (1) TN MAC 134 wherein for loss of legs of the injured in the accident, 1/3rd towards Personal Expenses was not deducted. 14. P.W2-Doctor fixed the disability at 90%. It is not only the disability but also loss of earning power. The nature of the injuries and the condition of the claimant would prove that the injuries caused 100% disability and therefore loss of ability to earn is 100%. Hence this Court fixes the disability at 100%. 15. As far as the age is concerned, it was stated in the claim petition as 30 which was followed by the Tribunal. This Court also fixes the same and adopts corresponding multiplier “17” to arrive at the loss of income at Rs.6,12,000/- Rs.3,000 x 12 x 17 = Rs.6,12.000/-). As far as the loss of income during the treatment period was fixed at Rs.2,500/- and the same is enhanced to Rs.3,000x2=Rs.6000/-as he was hospitalized for two months. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2000/- towards Transportation it has to be enhanced and accordingly it is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. As far as the loss of income during the treatment period was fixed at Rs.2,500/- and the same is enhanced to Rs.3,000x2=Rs.6000/-as he was hospitalized for two months. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2000/- towards Transportation it has to be enhanced and accordingly it is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards Extra Nourishment and the same is confirmed. For Medical Expenses a Sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded and the same is also confirmed. 16. Towards disability is concerned a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the fact that the loss of income was arrived based on the Second Schedule and any amount is granted towards disability would amount to double payment. Hence, Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards disability is deleted. A sum of Rs.50,000 was awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings. The petitioner sustained many grievous injuries viz. (a) his penis was crushed, (b) testicles were removed, (c) left let was amputated from thing region, (d) his urinal bladder was ruptured, (e) he sustained contusion it chest and hip, (f) contusion in the stomach and chest, and (g) he sustained ibnjuries all over the body. The various surgeries were done on claimant would speak themselves for the pain and sufferings suffered by the claimant. Considering the nature of the injuries, this Court enhances the from Rs.50,000/- award by the tribunal to Rs.75,000/- 17. It is an admitted fact that the claimant was a bachelor at the time of accident and by the unfortunate accident, he is forced to live as a bachelor as there was no possibility of marriage due to the injuries caused to the essential reproductive organs. The quality of life to be led by the victim is also an important factor to be considered, Hence, it is appropriate to award compensation towards loss of matrimonial prospects and also for loss of enjoyment in life. If a person wants to remain as a bachelor, it is his wish and right. If a person is forced to be a bachelor against his own wishes, it is an important and essential factor to be taken into while awarding compensation. Hence, for loss of matrimonial prospects and enjoyment of life, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is granted. If a person wants to remain as a bachelor, it is his wish and right. If a person is forced to be a bachelor against his own wishes, it is an important and essential factor to be taken into while awarding compensation. Hence, for loss of matrimonial prospects and enjoyment of life, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is granted. In the result, the award of the Tribunal is enhanced as follows: For Loss of Income For Loss of Income during Treatment For Extra Nourishment For Transportation For Medical Expenses For Pain & Sufferings For Loss of Marriage) Prospects and Loss of) Enjoyment) Total Rs.6,12,000/- Rs.6,000/-Rs.15,000/-Rs.10,000/-Rs.5,000/-Rs.75,000/-Rs. 50,000/- Rs.7,73,500/- 18. The aforesaid amount would carry 9% as awarded by the Tribunal. In t he result, the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is disposed of enhancing the award amount from Rs.7,11,000/- to Rs.7,73,500/-. Though, there is no Appeal Cross-Appeal by the claimant, this Court enhances the amount under Order 41, Rule 33 read with Section 151, C.P.C. and under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act which is a beneficial legislation intended to benefit the victims of accidents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudyal Singh and others, 2003 (2) SCC 274 , in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Saroja and others, 2008 (1) TN MAC 352 categorically held that this Court has got power and jurisdiction to enhance the compensation even in the absence of the Appeal Cross-Appeal by the claimant. Accordingly the award of Rs.7,11,000/- is enhanced to Rs.7,73.500 in the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 19. This case is a lesson learning case by which every one of us has to understand the importance and necessity to follow road rules meticulously. Otherwise, even for no fault of his/her/their, innocent third parties including those who drive the vehicles speedily, rash and negligently unmindful of road rule, would loose their precious lives; and sustain injuries making them crippled throughout their lives miserably. Main families are suffering day by day in our country because of innumerable accidents. 20. Safety is very much important on the roads. World Health Organization (WHO) in its first ever “GLOBAL STATUS REPORT ON ROAD SAFETY” stated that more people die in road accidents in India than any other country. It says that 1,14,590 people died in road accidents in 2007 in our country. 20. Safety is very much important on the roads. World Health Organization (WHO) in its first ever “GLOBAL STATUS REPORT ON ROAD SAFETY” stated that more people die in road accidents in India than any other country. It says that 1,14,590 people died in road accidents in 2007 in our country. Express say that the real numbers could be more as many accidents are not reported. It means that every hour 13 people die every hour in road accidents. India registered a sharp increase of 6.1% raise in road accident deaths between 2006 and 2007. Key causes for road traffic accident deaths are speeding, drunken driving, not wearing safety accessories and speed remains the main contributing factor. 21. “ACCIDENTAL DEATHS AND SUCIDES IN INDIA” the report brought out by “National Crime Bureau (NCRB)” gave the detailed information on various aspects of accidents and suicides taking place in India. “The incidence of accidental deaths has shown mixed trend during the decade 1997-2007 with increase of 45.7% in the year 2007 as compared to 1997. The populating growth during the corresponding period was 19.0% whereas the increase in the rate of accidental deaths during the same period was 22.5%” Growth in No. of Vehicles and Road Accidents in India (2003-2007) Sl. No. Year Road Accidents (in thousand) % Variation over previous year Persons injured (in thousands) % Variation over previous year Persons Killed (in thousands) % Variation over previous year No. of vehicles (in thousand) % Variation over previous year Rate For Col.9, Motor Transport Statistics of India 2002-2003. Transport Research Wing, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, New Delhi. “data for the year 2003 is repeated in 2004 also due to none availability. @ as per latest data of Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (2004-05). # data for the year 2006 is repeated in 2007 due to non availability. 22. The above detail (Down loaded from internet) shows that— .(1) 1,14,590 people lost their lives in 2007 .(2) 4,65,300 people injured in the accidents in 2007 Death due to age and diseases are natural and they can not be prevented, whereas deaths due to accidents can be avoided/prevented and reduced by us. 23. Rule 118 of Motor Vehicle Rule speaks about fixing “speed governor” and the said rule is extracted as follows: “118. 23. Rule 118 of Motor Vehicle Rule speaks about fixing “speed governor” and the said rule is extracted as follows: “118. Speed governor – (1) On and from the commence of this Rule, such transport vehicles as may be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette shall be fitted by the operator of such transport vehicle with a speed governor (speed controlling device) confirming to the Standard Ais:018, as amended from time to time, in such a manner that the speed governor can be sealed with an official seal of the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority in such a way that it cannot be removed or tampered with without the seal being broken. (2) The speed governor of every transport which shall be so set that the vehicle is incapable of being driven at a speed in excess of the maximum pre-set speed of the vehicle except down an incline” This Court is not aware of as to whether the said rule is being implemented expeditiously or not and if not, the said rule may be implemented by fixing “Speed governor” in the vehicles which would control the speed of the vehicles and most of the accidents would be prevented. 24. The followings are found to be main causes for accidents: .(1) Speeding .(2) Drunkendriving .(3) Taking onCellphone while driving .(4) Violation of Road Rules .(5) Rash and negligent driving The existing provisions of Motor Vehicles Act do not contemplate stringent punishment for the offenders given the magnitude of serious consequences of their acts. The following table shows the offences, Sections and the punishments under the Act and it would disclose that the punishments are not severe enough. Sl. The following table shows the offences, Sections and the punishments under the Act and it would disclose that the punishments are not severe enough. Sl. No. Offence Sections Punishment/penalty 1 Talking on cellphone while driving S. 184 & S. 177 of M.V. Act Upto Rs.1,000 or Imprisonment for six months or both (first offence) Upto Rs.1,000/- or imprisonment upto two years or upto Rs.2,000/- or both (Second offence) 2 Driving excessive speed in violation of speed limits given u/S. 112 of M.V. Act S.183(1) of M.V. Act Rs.400 upto Rs.1,000/- 3 Driving dangerously S.184 of M.V. Act Upto Rs.1,000 or Imprisonment for six months or both (first offence) Upto Rs.1,000/- or imprisonment upto two years or upto Rs.2,000/- or both (Second offence) 4 Drunken driving S.185 of M.V. Act Imprisonment upto six months or fine upto (Rs.2,000/- or both (for first time offence) Imprisonment upto two years or fine upto Rs.3,000/- or both (For the second time offenders) 5 Driving without effective driving licence u/s. 3 & 4 S.181 of M.V. Act Imprisonment upto three months or fine upto Rs.500/- or both 6 Racing S.189 of M.V. Act Imprisonment upto one month or Rs,.500/- or both Though Section 202 of the M.V. Act authorises the police officer to arrest any person who drives dangerously (Section 184), Drunken Drivers (Section 185), taking vehicle without authority (Section 197), etc., very rarely police arrests those people. Taking on cellphone while driving has to be considered as dangerous, rash and negligent driving, given the evil consequences. 25. Violation of road rules has to be deemed as an offence (1) under Section 279 of IPC which is rash driving or riding on a public way. (2) Section 337 of I.P.C. (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) and (3) Section 338 of I.P.C. (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others). If any death is caused due to negligent driving or violation of road rules, the accused has to necessarily be charged under Section 304-A of IPC for which where compulsory imprisonment has to be awarded. Then only people would not indulge in rash and negligent driving. If any death is caused due to negligent driving or violation of road rules, the accused has to necessarily be charged under Section 304-A of IPC for which where compulsory imprisonment has to be awarded. Then only people would not indulge in rash and negligent driving. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sharanappa Basaragowda Aregoudar, 2002 (2) CTC 125 (sc) : 2002 (3) SCC 738 wherein it is held as follows: “If the accused are found guilty of rash and negligent driving, Courts have to be on guard to ensure that they do not escape the clutches of law very lightly. The sentence imposed by the Courts should have deterrent effect on potential wrong does and should commensurate with the seriousness of the offence”. As stated above the punishments for the offences under the Motor Vehicle Act are to be taken very seriously and the seriously and the punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the accident viz. loss of life, injuries caused to the victims. Then only the incidence of accidents would come down due to stringent punishment. 26. Mobile phone is a recent invention. People are driving and attending the cell phone simultaneously and it would lead to ghastly accidents causing loss of lives, and injuries to many innocent people. There is no specific provision in the Act or Rule to contain this serious offence of the I.P.C. or Motor Vehicle Act, the parliament is required to make the act of talking cellphone, while driving as a specific offence with stringent punishment by way of amendment in the Motor Vehicle Act. It is high time for the parliament to bring suitable amendment in the Motor Vehicle Act as well as in I.P.C. in the larger interest of public. 27. This Court already decried about the need for stringent punishment for talking on cell phone while driving by judgment dated 26. 2009 passed in Managing Director M/s. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Pudukottai v. S. Maharaja. In that Transport Corporation took specific stand that the injured Respondent Claimant was attending cellphone while riding the motor cycle and because of that only the accident occurred. This Court stressed the necessity of stringent action against mobile phone users while riding and reads as follows: “….. In that Transport Corporation took specific stand that the injured Respondent Claimant was attending cellphone while riding the motor cycle and because of that only the accident occurred. This Court stressed the necessity of stringent action against mobile phone users while riding and reads as follows: “….. Irrespective of whether the respondent/claimant was attending the mobile phone while driving or not, it is common sight nowadays people riding motor cycle/driving vehicles and simultaneously attending mobile phone calls and in most cases, the attention of the motorists are drawn in the conversation over the mobile phones. The mobile user/rider will be affected based on the information received and totally loosing control over the vehicle and there are every possibility of causing accident. As a result many innocent people are injured or sometimes because of the injuries, they succumbed to death. 17. Mobile phone is a fruit of scientific invention. Such a technologies device should be used/enjoyed in a proper manner for development and benefit of the user. Otherwise it will lead to many social problem like the road traffic accident causing injuries and death of innocent people apart from injuries to the motoroists themselves who most of the time succumb to death. The mobile phone has brought the world into our palm. In recent days, it is the only scientific invention which has reached one and all in a shorter time. Once considered to be luxury and now become essential for every body. Mobile phone providers’ association put the number of users of mobile phone in India upto June 2009 at population. In due course, India will top in mobile phone usage. This itself would prove that the mobile has reached almost all our homes in India. Such an useful devise should be used usefully and carefully, as the mobile is the attention distractor. One university already banned use of mobile phones inside. University, as the usage distracts the students from studies. As mobile phone has become essential thing in the life, the children should be taught about mobile phones with care and caution. 18. Anindividual’s action would make many families to suffer through out their life. Hence, it is always advisable to avoid talking over mobile phone while riding/driving the vehicles. It is not only in the interest of the motorist but also interest of the general public at large. 18. Anindividual’s action would make many families to suffer through out their life. Hence, it is always advisable to avoid talking over mobile phone while riding/driving the vehicles. It is not only in the interest of the motorist but also interest of the general public at large. This Court hopes that the Police Authorities and Transport Authorities would act against the erring motorists. It has to be remembered that in many cities like Bangalore, attending mobile phones while driving is prohibited long ago. By attending the mobile while driving, the motorists are only inviting sorrows and sufferings not only to them but also to other innocent people. We can prevent horrible accidents; therefore the police has to take preventive steps like prohibiting the riders attending mobile calls by fine of seizure of mobile phone. Prevention is better than cure. Strict police vigil and severe action alone can deter the violations. 28. Most of the Road traffic offenders are left by payment of fine, in spite of the provision for imprisonment. Taking advantage of leniency shown in dealing with traffic offences, there are attempts by unruly elements adopting road traffic accidents to finish of their enemies. Strict enforcement of law and mandatory punishments alone would deter people from violating the road rules. The accidents would be definitely brought down if not completely eradicated by: .(a) suitable amendment in laws by Parliament/Legislature; .(b) Strict enforcement of law by Police Officials; .(c) Following rules strictly by RTO officials while issuing driving licence; .(d) Educating/Sensitising the motorists and .(e) Co-operation of the family members 29. The accidents would be definitely brought down if not completely eradicated by: .(a) suitable amendment in laws by Parliament/Legislature; .(b) Strict enforcement of law by Police Officials; .(c) Following rules strictly by RTO officials while issuing driving licence; .(d) Educating/Sensitising the motorists and .(e) Co-operation of the family members 29. The following suggestions are given for effective road traffic management: .(1) This Court wants parliament to bring suitable amendments in Motor Vehicles Act and I.P.C. to award more stringent punishment for road traffic offences; .(2) Rule 118 of Motor Vehicle Rule which requires the transport vehicles to be fitted with “speed governor” (Speed controlling device) is required to be implemented expeditiously by the State Governments; .(3) Roads safety councils and committees as mandated in Section 215 of M.V. Act are to be formed by appointing experts by the Central and State Governments if they are not already formed and based on the suggestions road safety can be enhanced; .(4) A comprehensive scheme is required to be evolved so that violations of road rules should result in cancellation of licence besides stringent punishment; .(5) Special Court may be constitute to deal with road traffic offences so that the cases could be disposed of at the earliest; .(6) The Police officials are required to enforce the law strictly for violation of road rules and discipline. Periodical checks have to be conducted by the police and it goes without saying that they are also required not to give any room for corruption; .(7) Theofficials may circulate hand bills, advertisement in print and visual media ahd short films high lighting dangers of violation of road rules; .(8) Road Rules and discipline can be made as lessons in the text book so that they could be inculcated in the minds of children; .(9) Educating the public about the road rules is important and the message would reach the masses if celebrities like popular political leaders and cinema stars spread the message of road discipline through media. Hence celebrities can be requested to do this, as they have the social responsibility for an orderly and disciplined society; .(10) Present system of granting driving licence is faulty and deliberate violations are made to grant licence to people who do not have required skill to drive. Hence celebrities can be requested to do this, as they have the social responsibility for an orderly and disciplined society; .(10) Present system of granting driving licence is faulty and deliberate violations are made to grant licence to people who do not have required skill to drive. Granting Driving Licence is required to be given after proper test and verification strictly and it would prevent unqualified people getting driving licences; .(11) The licence seekers should be given lectures by experts, doctors, social workers etc, stressing upon the necessity to follow road rules, before the licence is given; .(12) If possible, licence seekers are to be taken to hospitals where accident victims are taking treatment so that the evil consequences of violation of road rules would be understood properly by first hand information; (13) People are necessarily required to be educated about the necessity and responsibility of helping the injured at the time of accident, as most of us behave like heartless people by looking at the scene of occurrence and going away without helping then at the “golden hour”. We are proclaiming ourselves that we are living in a civilized society, whereas it is rather terribly shocking to know that people are robbing the belongings of the accident victims instead of helping them and for that we have to hang our head in shame. If victims are helped in time, many lives would be saved by us. And; .(15) Accident prone zone have to be identified and mobile trauma units are required to be stationed there. More preventive measures like putting speed breakers have to be done there and the roads should be laid according to road safety measures. 30. This Court is aware that most of the motorist pray while/before starting their vehicles. Irrespective of that, this Court wants the motorists to think about their family, while starting the vehicles. A thought about their loving children, caring wife and affectionate parents and their dependency on him for livelihood would definitely deter the motorists from driving speedily and violating road rules and would reduce the accidents considerably. This Court feels that family members can play active and constructive role in controlling/preventing accidents by telling the motorists to drive the vehicles very slowly and without violating road rules and it would definitely have impact and reduce the accidents. This Court expects the family members act as stated above. 31. This Court feels that family members can play active and constructive role in controlling/preventing accidents by telling the motorists to drive the vehicles very slowly and without violating road rules and it would definitely have impact and reduce the accidents. This Court expects the family members act as stated above. 31. Day by day vehicles are added to traffic. By increase in number for vehicles, accidents are also increasing. Even though there are more vehicles in United States, accidents are very low whereas a very sad state of affairs in our country is that vehicles are comparatively low and the accidents are more. This is due to the aforesaid reasons which would be avoided. Even in signals people are not exhibiting patience and almost every one is trying to jump signals. It is very unfortunate that even for ambulances, people are not giving way on the other hand they try to follow the ambulance shamlessly so that they could go fast. 32. Right to life and liberty is protected as Fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence it is the bounden duty of the government to safeguard and protect the said right of the citizens. When the said fundamental right is endangered by accidents, the government is required to take steps to prevent/reduce the accidents and provide quick medical help and comprehensive hassle free and easy insurance payment/compensation to the victims. Moreover, injuries caused to the victims in the accidents are violation of human rights. 33. This Court expects the above recommendations may be taken into consideration by the Government and may be acted appropriately at the earliest in the safety of motorists and the general public at large. Discipline of the society is reflected in the traffic signals. We all know what kind of discipline we possess. This court hopes we wake up before more lives are lost in accidents. Irrespective of the above, what is required is out self discipline while driving. 34. The Appeal is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2008 are closed.