Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1458 (ALL)

RAMA BHARDWAJ v. RAJA RAM VERMA

2017-05-31

ASHOK KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Kumar, J.—The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 23.2.1982 passed by M.AC.T./IV Additional District Judge, Agra in M.A.C. No. 50 of 1971 (Smt. Rama Bharadwaj and four others v. Raja Ram and another). 2. This appeal has been filed under the provisions of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by which the claimants have claimed an award of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that an accident took place on 8.2.1971 at about 5.30 p.m. when the deceased one Suresh Chandra Bharadwaj was coming on a Scooter bearing No. U.P.U-2974 from Tundla to Agra. An Ambassador Car bearing No. U.P.U-8985 belongs to one Raja Ram, the opposite party No. 1 in the claim petition, was going to Sikandrabad from Agra. It is submitted that when the deceased reached near ‘Budhiya Ka Talab’, within the circle of Police Station, Estamadpur, District Agra, at a distance of about 1 km. from the police station, Estamadpur, the Scooter of the deceased collided with the aforesaid Ambessdor Car. On account of the said accident the scooter rider namely, Suresh Chandra Bharadwaj had received severe injuries and ultimately he died. 4. The claimants in their claim petition pleaded that the accident took place due to utter negligence, rash and speedy driving of the Ambassador Car and on account of the said speedy driving by the driver of the Ambassador Car the scooter on which the deceased was going has met an accident. 5. It is further submitted by the claimants that the driver of the car was driving the car not only at a high speed but he was on wrong side and had violated the traffic rules. It is submitted that as a result of the said accident the deceased sustained number of injuries and thereafter he died. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that the car of the opposite party No. 1, Raja Ram (before the Claim Tribunal) was insured with M/s. Kanara Motor and General Insurance Company Ltd., opposite party No. 2 in the claim petition. 7. The claim petition has been filed by Smt. Rama Bharadwaj, W/o deceased Suresh Chandra Bharadwaj and three minor daughters namely Renu, Archana and Anupama. In the said claim petition the claimant No. 4 is one Manoj Kumar, who is the minor son of the deceased Suresh Chandra Bharadwaj. 8. 7. The claim petition has been filed by Smt. Rama Bharadwaj, W/o deceased Suresh Chandra Bharadwaj and three minor daughters namely Renu, Archana and Anupama. In the said claim petition the claimant No. 4 is one Manoj Kumar, who is the minor son of the deceased Suresh Chandra Bharadwaj. 8. In the claim petition it has been alleged that the deceased Suresh Chandra Bharadwaj, R/o Freeganj Road, Agra was carrying on the business of brick-klin and was the partner of the business concerned known as Ravi Industrial Corporation, and Bonds Transporters. 9. It is further claimed by the claimants that since the claimants were fully dependents upon the deceased and as a result of demise of the deceased, the claimants have sustained huge loss. 10. It is submitted that the deceased Suresh Chandra Bharadwaj was a young man having good physique and personality. He was a member of Lions Club, Secretary of District Table Tannis Association and Joint Secretary of District Basket Ball Association. The deceased was also a member of Executive Committee of U.P. Sports Control Board and U.P. Olympic Association. It is claimed by the claimants that being a young businessman and involved in several business the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month. The claimants have filed the claim petition by which they claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation as per their petition dated 5.8.1971. 11. The opposite party No. 1, the owner of the vehicle, one Rajaram has filed a written statement on 10.1.1972. In the written statement he has stated that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the Scooter driver, the deceased. He has further pleaded that the deceased himself was driving the Scooter at a very high speed. The opposite party No. 1 has submitted in his written statement that the deceased was pleaded to be under the influence of liquor and therefore, he himself was responsible for the accident in question and, therefore, he has prayed that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is unjustified and he has also pleaded that the same is excessive and arbitrary. 12. 12. The insurance company filed a written statement on 7.3.1972, in which the pleadings are made that the claimants had no cause of action to file the claim petition and further pleaded that the deceased was himself responsible for the accident in question. It is also pleaded by the insurance company that the deceased was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident. The insurance company has also stated that the deceased was not holding a valid licence for driving the Scooter and further that the income of the deceased was inflated and the amount of compensation so claimed by the claimants was exaggerated. The insurance company, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 13. Following issues are being framed by the Tribunal in the present case : “1. Whether the accident was due to the rah and negligent driving of the driver of the car or due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter its driver ? 2. Whether the deceased was authorised to drive the scooter ? If so, its effect ? 3. Whether the defence taken by the Insurance Company is available to it ? 4. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled ?” 14. Heard Sri Apurva Hajala, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel representing the insurance company respondent No. 2. No one put appearance on behalf of the owner of the Car, opposite party No. 1. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the findings recorded by the Court below are perverse, contrary and as such the same are based on a misreading of the evidence and non-application of judicial mind. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that the allegation of deceased being drunk are baseless, as the same is not complemented by the postmortem report of the decease, and therefore, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of the aforesaid, a copy of the postmortem report has been placed for perusal. 16. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Court below while deciding the issue No. 1 has disbelieved the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2, who were eye-witnesses of the accident. In support of the aforesaid, a copy of the postmortem report has been placed for perusal. 16. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Court below while deciding the issue No. 1 has disbelieved the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2, who were eye-witnesses of the accident. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is not necessary for every eye-witness to lodge the FIR of an incident and the priority of any person at such juncture would be to provide medical assistance to the injured. The counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court with regard to the reasons given by the Court below about the pillion rider one Ramesh Chandra. In this context the counsel has submitted that the pillion rider as any prudent person would on priority basis take the injured to nearest Hospital and would go for medical examination of himself and would inform the family members of deceased on priority basis. 17. The Court below has recorded the reason since PW 1 did not lodge the FIR, therefore, it cannot be said that he witnessed the accident. Further the Court below has also recorded the reason that since the pillion rider one Ramesh Chandra also did not lodge the FIR therefore, the statement of Sri Hriday Kumar Paliwal and Ramesh Chandra cannot be believed. The Court below at the end has recorded the reason that since the PW 1 was not able to recognize the defendant No. 1, therefore, the statement of PW 1 lacks credibility. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conclusion of the Court below while deciding the issue No. 1 is not correct because it is not necessary for every eye-witness to lodge the FIR of an incident and further that the pillion rider as any prudent person would on priority basis first to take the injured in a hospital for the medical examination and thereafter to inform the family members of the injured or the deceased and at the last or third stage the information to the police. 19. 19. Counsel has further submitted that the accident took place on 8.2.1971 whereas the statement of PW 1 has been recorded on 15.12.1978 i.e. almost after 8 years and in that passage of time it may not be possible for an independent person to recognize someone after the aforesaid gap of 8 years and further that with whom he had no contact, acquaintance etc. So far as the statement of PW 2 is concerned, the Court below has held that since PW 2 has submitted that the Ambassador Car was running at a speed of 50-60 kms. per hour (as per statement of PW 2), therefore, it cannot be said that it was a rash or negligent driving. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since Ambassador Car is a heavy car in comparison to other four wheeler and the same known for the strongest car at that point of time, therefore, the total momentum created by it at a speed of 60 kms. per hour would be fatal for a person travelling on a Scooter. At the end the counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Court below has relied on the statement of DW 1 and DW 2 without even considering the relevant fact that DW 2 was a developed eye-witness as he himself has admitted that after a gap of three days of the accident, Raja Ram met him and has told him that he has to depose in the claim petition from his side. Further more the theory developed by DW 2 with regard to Chaman, Ambassador Car driver also appears to be false and cooked one because neither Chaman was ever produced before Court below nor any evidence of him driving the car at the time of accident, migrating to Pakistan was produced before the Court below. 20. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the Court below is not correct and the issue No. 1 decided by the Court below against the claimants has been incorrectly decided. 21. The Court below has disbelieved both PW 1 Sri Hridaya Kumar Paliwal and PW 2 one Gopi Nath Mehra. 20. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the Court below is not correct and the issue No. 1 decided by the Court below against the claimants has been incorrectly decided. 21. The Court below has disbelieved both PW 1 Sri Hridaya Kumar Paliwal and PW 2 one Gopi Nath Mehra. The statement of both PW 1 and 2 are disbelieved by the Court below by observing that both of them were not present at the time of accident and just to friendly curtsy they have deposed their statement falsely. The Court below has disbelieve the presence of one Dr. V.K. Jain also. PW 2 Gopi Nath Mehra has stated that he was following the deceased on another Scooter at the time of the accident and therefore, when the accident took place he has witnessed the occurrence. He stated that when the accident took place he was present at the site where about 10-15 persons had assembled including one Dr. V.K. Jain. The Court below has held that once a doctor like V.K. Jain was present at the place of the occurrence alongwith Sri Mehra, it is not believable that the necessary first aid to the deceased would not have been provided on the spot. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that merely presence of a doctor at the accident site is not enough unless and until he has some basic equipment/medicines etc. at that point of time and since the deceased has received severe injuries including the head injury therefore, a simple doctor travelling on a road cannot be expected to provide any first aid. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even the ‘Naksa Nazri’ clearly demonstrates that the accident took place at the left side of the road (Tundla to Agra), this clearly demonstrates and proves that the deceased was going extreme left side, however it was the Ambassador Car in question which went to the right end of the road side. Heavily relied upon the ‘Naksa Nazri’ learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, even assuming without admitting, if the Scooter was driven by the deceased negligently even then when the Scooter has been hitted by the Car the Scooter was on its right side (correct side) and it is the Ambassador Car which was coming on wrong side and hitted Scooter. I find some strength in the arguments supported by the evidence (Naksa Nazri) and it clearly supports the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the accident took place when the Scooter was going on the correct way/side whereas the Ambassador Car was running in high speed on wrong side. 23. At the end learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the claim petition filed under Section 110 A of Old Act or under Section 166 of New Act when the accident is admitted to parties, the Tribunal can safely require the defendant to prove that he was not negligent and rash in his driving and that the accident did not occur for his fault. The said principle is based on doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor which is a latin term and literally it implies that “action speaks for itself”. The said golden rule of evidence which lays down procedure to ascertain the real cause of accident when the injured dies. The said rules is followed by various Courts. Some of them are as follows: (a) Shanthi and others v. K. Nallasamy, 2008 (4) TAC 83 (Para 11) (b) Basti Kasim Saheb v. Mysore SRTC, 1991 (1) SCC 298 (Para 7) (c) Usha Rajkhowa v. Paramount Industries, 2009 (2) TAC 11 (SC) Para 9 (d) Gauri Pala Manemma v. APRSTC, 2002 (3) TAC 299 (Paras 4, 5, 6) (e) Sunehra Singh v. Baljit Singh, 2001 (2) TAC 44 (P&H) (Para 4, 5, 6) (f) Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848 . 24. On the other hand, the counsel for the insurance company Sri P.K. Sinha has submitted that the judgment of the Court below is correct as the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the two witnesses produced by the claimants/appellants were not the eye-witnesses and further that the pillion rider did not sustain any injury nor he has lodged the FIR which creates doubt that the deceased was himself negligent. The counsel for the insurance company has further submitted that the owner of the Ambassador Car has produced one Dhaniram, who has deposed that he has seen that the deceased was driving the Scooter in a very high speed in oscillating manner which clearly proved that the deceased was himself negligent. The counsel for the insurance company has further submitted that the owner of the Ambassador Car has produced one Dhaniram, who has deposed that he has seen that the deceased was driving the Scooter in a very high speed in oscillating manner which clearly proved that the deceased was himself negligent. He has also relied upon the finding recorded by the Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 2 and further that the Dhaniram, DW 1 has stated that the deceased himself contributed to the accident. Counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the maxim Res Ipsa Loquitor cannot be applied in the present case and further has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Minu B Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, AIR 1977 (SC) 1248 . At the end learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the since the Claims Tribunal has categorically recorded a finding that the deceased himself was negligent for the said accident therefore, the claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition. 25. After hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties, in my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to have some strength. The Court below, in my opinion, has not correctly/truly examined the issue, which are raised in the claim petition and further the statements of PW 1 Sri Hridaya Kumar Paliwal and PW 2 Gopi Nath Mehra, who deposed to be the eye-witness of the occurrence. Both of the eye-witnesses have given/explained almost the similar kind of facts and circumstances of the accident/occurrence and merely or incidentally if an eye-witness is known to a victim/deceased than their statements cannot be ruled out on the pretext that they are close to the deceased/victim or the claimants. In the present case, the presence of both PW 1 and PW 2 appears to be genuine and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Court below are not correct and the same are being set aside. 26. The other issue which has been considered by the Court below relates to allegation of deceased being drunk. In this regard the Court below has discussed the said issue, however the counsel for the appellant has submitted that the postmortem of the deceased do not establishes that the deceased was drunk when the accident took place. 26. The other issue which has been considered by the Court below relates to allegation of deceased being drunk. In this regard the Court below has discussed the said issue, however the counsel for the appellant has submitted that the postmortem of the deceased do not establishes that the deceased was drunk when the accident took place. Admittedly the accident took place at about 5 p.m. when the deceased was travelling on a two wheeler and since the deceased was a member of reputed business family as well as the office bearer of several public origination, cannot be expected to take alcohol while driving a two wheeler particularly, at the time when the accident took place i.e. at about 5 p.m. There is no other evidence which suggests that the deceased was drunk when the accident took place. Even the postmortem report does not indicate that the deceased was drunk at the time of accident. 27. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the order of the Court below is not correct as the Court below has believed the statement of the opposite party No. 2 Raja Ram, the owner of the Ambassador Car that the said car was being driven by Chaman driver and the said driver namely Chaman has since migrated to Pakistan after the accident took place and therefore, since he is not traceable now it was not possible for the owner of the vehicle to have examined him before the Court below. From the perusal of the record and the judgment, at no point of time the opposite party No. 2, owner of the Ambassador Car, has even been asked by the Court below to produce the driver Chaman for examination. Therefore, in my opinion, the findings recorded by the Court below in this regard are not correct as such cannot sustain. 28. The Tribunal has concluded by holding that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the Scooter driver whereas this finding is solely based from the statement of Dhaniram DW 1, who has stated that the deceased was coming at a high speed and due to negligence and carelessness of deceased the accident took place. Except the aforesaid statement of DW 1 nothing is placed or is available on record which can suggest that the deceased was driving the Scooter with negligently and carelessness. Except the aforesaid statement of DW 1 nothing is placed or is available on record which can suggest that the deceased was driving the Scooter with negligently and carelessness. On the other hand, there are ample evidence which suggests that the accident took place due to negligent and rash driving by the Car driver. 29. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and in the present case the doctrine on Res Ipsa Loquitor clearly implies. 30. In the present case, admittedly, an accident took place when the Scooter coming on the right side has been hitted by an Ambassador Car coming from other side on its wrong way and in a speed of over 60 kms. per hour and this clearly establishes that the accident took place on account of high speed and negligent driving by the car driver. In the present case, it is well established that the real facts of the accident is nothing but a rash and negligent driving by the car driver accordingly, I hold that the order of the Tribunal in this regard cannot sustain. 31. The finding recorded by the Court below, while deciding the issue No. 2, that since the deceased was a socialite being member of Lions Club, Secretary of District Table Tannis Association and Joint Secretary of District Basket Ball Association and he was also a member of Executive Committee of U.P. Sports Control Board and U.P. Olympic Association and as such a good sports man, therefore the Court below has believed that he was overed venturous and over smart man. The Court below has believed that the deceased was capable of taking the risk of driving a Scooter at a high speed even without holding a proper licence for the same. The Court has therefore, concluded and held that the deceased has himself contributed to the accident and accordingly the issue No. 2 has been decided in favour of the opposite parties. 31-A. In my view, the finding recorded by the Court below, so far as that since the deceased being a socialite and a good sports man, hence was capable of taking the risk of driving of Scooter at a high speed, appears to be incorrect. It is not true that every sports man or a socialite person drives the vehicle negligently or rashly and at a high speed. It is not true that every sports man or a socialite person drives the vehicle negligently or rashly and at a high speed. To this extent the finding recorded by the Court below cannot sustain. 32. Issue No. 3 relates to recovery of the amount of compensation from the insurance company. The Court below has held that the insurance company was entitled to get all the pleas taken by it in its written statement and has held that the defence taken by the insurance company could lawfully taken while deciding issue No. 3. 33. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has not decided the issue No. 4 nor has recorded any finding whatsoever whereas the issue No. 4 was framed as to what extent the amount of compensation is payable and, if any, are the claimants entitled. 34. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimants have filed I.T.R. (Income Tax Returns) of the firm which has neither been considered nor appreciated. Further more the counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which it has been ruled out that the Court concerned even can enhanced the awarded claim claimed by the claimants by applying the principle of ‘just compensation’. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Nagappa v. Gurdayal Singh and 7 others, 2003 (1) TAC 241 (SC). 35. At the end the counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Court below has neither considered the submission nor the claim of the claimants that after the death of head person of the family the claimants being the wife, three minor daughters and a minor son has to be compensated under the head of pain and suffering. The Court below has also not considered the issue of life expectancy as well as interest payable to the claimants. 36. The submissions of the counsel for the appellant with respect of issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has some force as indicated hereinabove. From perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that an accident took place in which the deceased Suresh Chandra Bharadwaj has received serious injures and ultimately he died when he was on the way to hospital. 36. The submissions of the counsel for the appellant with respect of issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has some force as indicated hereinabove. From perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that an accident took place in which the deceased Suresh Chandra Bharadwaj has received serious injures and ultimately he died when he was on the way to hospital. The deceased was travelling on a two wheeler Scooter on the right side whereas the car which was driven by the driver negligently and rashly as also speedily has hitted on the wrong side and the deceased therefore, sustained the injures. So far as the pillion rider is concerned, some time it is seen that the pillion rider or even the vehicle driver may not sustain any injury. In this case, it appears that when scooter is hitted the pillion rider may fall in mud by jumping and, therefore the pillion rider may not have received any kind of injury. Further the Court below has relied upon the statement of alleged eye-witness, who has been produced by the opposite party No. 1, the owner of the Ambassador Car. The Court below recorded the statement and has held that the deceased was driving the scooter negligently. There is no other evidence which can suggest that the deceased was driving the scooter in high speed or rashly and negligently. In fact from perusal of the record and the statement of the eye-witness namely PW 1 and PW 2 one can conclude that the Ambassador Car in question was coming from other side, on wrong side and in a high speed has hitted the deceased and, therefore, the deceased has sustained serious injuries and died on the way to the hospital. 37. If the evidence in the present case is examined it leads to the irresistible conclusion that the driver was driving the Ambassador Car rashly and at high speed. The evidence in the present case leads to the conclusion that the driver of the Ambassador Car was driving the car rashly and negligently, as to whether the Ambassador Car was being driven or not, must be answered in this context. The evidence in the present case leads to the conclusion that the driver of the Ambassador Car was driving the car rashly and negligently, as to whether the Ambassador Car was being driven or not, must be answered in this context. In absence of any unexpected development it was for the driver of the car to have explained how the accident took place and since in the present case there is no explanation forthcoming as the alleged car driver Chaman has not been produced by the opposite party No. 1, owner of the car Raja Ram on the pretest that he left the services and shifted to Pakistan is not enough to say that the burden has been discharged by the owner of the Car, hence this Court held that since the burden has not been discharged by the owner of the car the order impugned of the Court below cannot sustain. 38. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that maxim ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ is applicable in the present case. 39. It is pertinent to point out that in an action for negligence, the legal burden of proof, no doubt rests on the claimant, but barring certain exceptional matters it may not be possible for the claimant to know what precisely led to the accident, in the considered opinion of this Court. As a matter of fact, this difficulty to the claimants can be avoided by applying the maxim ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’, which is not a principle of law, but a rule of evidence. Moreover, in certain cases it is quite possible for the claimants to rely on mere fact that something happened as affording Prima facie evidence of want due care on other’s pat. In reality, ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ is a principle which help them to do so. 40. Moreover, the mere happening of an accident itself may be more consistent with negligence on the pat of the defendant and if that is so, the Tribunal may find negligence on the part of the defendant unless he gives a reasonable explanation to show how the accident may have happened without negligence on his part. Indeed, once the doctrine ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ is found to be applicable, the burden of proof would certainly shift on the defendant. Indeed, once the doctrine ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ is found to be applicable, the burden of proof would certainly shift on the defendant. At this stage, it is not out of place to make a mention that in the instant case on hand, the burden falls on the respondent to show that the accident has not taken place due to any rash and negligent act on their part. 41. The evidence in the case indicates that there was no traffic on the road at the time of accident. No untoward incident took place like sudden failure of the brakes or an unexpected stray cattle coming in front of the Car and still the vehicle got into trouble. In absence of any unexpected development it was for the driver to have explained how this happened and there is no such explanation forthcoming. In such a situation the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur applies. The burden in such a situation is on the defendant to show that the driver was not negligent and that the accident might, more probably, have happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on his part, but the defence has failed to produce any evidence to support such a possibility. 42. In view of the aforesaid admittedly, since in the present case, the burden has not been discharged by the respondent to show that the accident has not taken place due to any rash and negligent act on their part hence, the order of the Court below cannot sustain and as such is set aside. 43. Now coming to the question of quantum of compensation. In the present claim petition claimants have claimed the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- The claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning of Rs. 1000/- per month when the accident took place. Since the deceased was running a brick-klin and was partner of Ravi Industrial Corporation & Bonds Transporters as such involved with several social activities, the claim so as made by the claimants appears to be justified. Since the Court below has rejected the claim petition filed by the claimants as such no findings are recorded by the Court below about the earning of the deceased nor the same has been disputed. However, this Court finds that person like the deceased may earn a sum of Rs. 1000 per month at the time of accident. 44. Since the Court below has rejected the claim petition filed by the claimants as such no findings are recorded by the Court below about the earning of the deceased nor the same has been disputed. However, this Court finds that person like the deceased may earn a sum of Rs. 1000 per month at the time of accident. 44. Since the claimants have claimed a lump sum Rs. 2,00,000/- as a compensation and no other claims are claimed in any head, this Court held that the claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- plus simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the judgment of the Court below. 45. In view of the above reasons, I find that the findings of the Court below cannot sustain with regard to issue No. 4 as such are set aside. The Court below is directed to calculate the total figure of compensation in view of the direction made hereinabove. 46. As a result, the present appeal is allowed. The findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2 are set aside and it is held that the driver of the Ambassador Car is negligent in causing the accident. The finding of the Court below on issue No. 4 is set aside. 47. The Tribunal is directed to comply with the direction so stipulated hereinabove and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. This exercise is expected to be completed by the Tribunal/Court below within a period of two months from the date of a certified copy of this judgment is placed/filed before it.