JUDGMENT
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1 .This judgment will dispose of three F.A.O. Nos. 387, 388 and 389 of 1988, as they have arisen out of common award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak dated December 3, 1987 and common questions of fact are involved.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rohtak in three separate claim petitions Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act had awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to Smt. Rajbala alias Rachhna on account of injuries sustained by her, Rs. 30,000/- to two minor children namely Ashish and Sapna on account of death of their parents and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to Rajesh Kumar on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor accident on the night intervening 23/24.1L1984. The said compensation was awarded after recording a finding that the driver of offending truck No. HRH-3787 was responsible for the accident in question to the extent of l/3rd and Mohan Singh, driver of car No. DEA-6069 in which the claimants were travelling was responsible to the extent of 2/3rd. The claimants were held entitled to Rs. 75,000/-, Rs. 90,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- but l/3rd of compensation was awarded to them.
3. The claimants being dissatisfied with the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal have filed three appeals separately bearing F.A.O. Nos. 387, 388 and 389 of 1988 which are being disposed of together by this judgment.
4. The award of the Tribunal has been assailed on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of driver of Car No. DEA-6069 in which the deceased alongwith others were travelling. The truck was loaded with iron rods and pipes which were protruding out. There was no back light on the truck and the driver of the offending truck had suddenly applied brakes as a result of which the car which was behind the truck rammed into it.
5. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand, has contended that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver Mohan Singh. Since Mohan Singh was driving the car at a high speed, he could not control the same and struck behind the truck. He has further contended that no fault can be attributed to the driver of the offending truck
6. In F.A.O. 387, it has been contended that claimant Rajbala was repeatedly operated upon as she had suffered multiple injuries. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, she has not been adequately compensated.
7. In F.A.O. No. 388, it has been’ contended that the claimants had lost their parents and they have no source of livelihood. It has been prayed on their behalf that the compensation awarded is not just and proper and the same may be enhanced.
8. In F.A.O. No. 389, the adequacy of compensation awarded to Rajesh Kumar claimant has been challenged. It has been contended that the claimant had suffered injuries on his left foot and hip and his one rib was broken in the accident in question. The claimant remained admitted in the Government Hospital for the treatment of his injuries in the special ward. Eventually, increase in the amount of compensation is prayed.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. In this case, deaths of Ashok Kumar, Smt. Rashmi Jain, Sokhesh Kumar and injuries to Rajbala and Rajesh Kumar have not been disputed. The only question which falls for determination in these cases is with regard to the manner of accident. After perusing the evidence on the record and taking into consideration other aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that in this case the fault lies with both the drivers. The necessary consequence is that both the drivers were equally negligent. It has come in the statement of Mohan Singh, driver of the ill fated car that the offending truck was loaded with iron rods and pipes which were protruding out of the body of the truck and there were no lights on the back of the truck. It appears that the driver of the truck had suddenly applied brakes. The ill-fated, Ambassador car which was following the truck rammed into it thereby resulting into loss of three lives and injuries to Rajbala and Rajesh Kumar. The respondents have not been able to show that there was any back light or indicator on the back of the truck. Even if it is assumed that there was back light even then the iron rods and pipes protruding out of the body of the truck could not be noticed from a considerable distance. It is a matter of common knowledge that dark objects cannot be seen or observed at night. At the same time if the driver of the car had been quite vigilant, he could have overtaken the truck from a side. In this view of the matter, it can safely be held that both the drivers had contributed to the accident. In other words, it is a case of contributory negligence and as such both the parties are equally responsible.
11. The compensation awarded to Smt. Rajbala alias Rachhna on account of injuries, pains and sufferings does not commensurate with the injuries suffered by her in the accident. It has come in the evidence of Dr. V.P. Singh that she had suffered head injury and fracture of skull bones. She had remained admitted in the hospital for three months and was operated upon for, five times. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries, agony suffered by Rajbala alias Rachhna and the medical expenses, I am of the view that she is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- under the head of pains and sufferings. In addition to this amount, she is also entitled to Rs. 25,000/- incurred by her on medical expenses. In all, she is entitled to a compensation of Rupees one lac.
12. In F.A.O, No. 388, it has come in the evidence of Shri Subhash Chand, grand-marternal father of Ashish and Sapna that he is spending Rs. 500/- on both the minor children. The children were obviously fully dependent on their parents who have died in the accident. They are held entitled to the same compensation of Rs. 90,000/- which they will share equally.
13. Rajesh Kumar was treated at Medical College and Hospital in a special ward. It has come in the evidence of Dr. N.S. Chadha that Rajesh Kumar claimant had fracture of second rib and was admitted in the private ward. Taking into consideration the injury and medical expenses as also the fact that the claimant remained admitted in special ward, he is held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.
14. In view of the fact that this court had returned a finding that the accident was caused due to contributory negligence of both the drivers, claimant Rajbala is held entitled to Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Ashish and Miss Sapna will get Rs. 45,000/-. They will share this amount of compensation equally. Rajesh Kumar is awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.
15. As a result of above discussion, the claimants in all the three F.A.Os. will be entitled to the following amount of compensation :-
Rajbala claimant Rs. 50,000/- Ashish and Miss Sapna Rs. 45,000/- (Both the claimants will share Rs. 45,000/- equally). Rajesh Kumar Rs. 10,000/-. 16. The claimants will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing claim petitions till payment. 17. The amount of compensation in respect of minors is to be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts in some Scheduled Bank and is to be released to them on their attaining majority. 18. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rohtak is modified to the extent indicated above. The F.A.Os. stand partly allowed. No order as to costs.