JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. This order will dispose of FAO No. 297 of 1985 and Cross-objection No. 67-CII of 1985. Surjit Kaur and her three minor children filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of compensation in
the sum of Rs. 2 lacs on account of death of her husband, Balbir Singh. On October 23, 1983 Balbir Singh was driving Punjab Roadways Bus No. PJG 1306 from Chandigarh to Rupnagar, when it met with an accident at about 7.30 p.m. on Kharar-Kurali Road. As a result of the accident, Balbir Singh, driver died. The Bus driven by Balbir Singh was hit by another Bus No. PBN 1125, driven by Darshan Singh, driver, belonging to the Punjab Roadways, Batala Depot, Batala. The further allegation is that Darshan Singh was driving his bus rashly and negligently and as a result struck against Bus No. PJG 1306 and drivers of both the buses died. Balbir Singh died at the spot, whereas Darshan Singh succumbed to his injuries later, Surjit Kaur being the widow of deceased Balbir Singh alongwith her two minor daughters and a minor son filed this petition claiming the compensation on account of the death of Balbir Singh, aged 35 years.
2. The claim was resisted by the appellants/respondents alleging that driver of Bus No. PBN 1125 was driving the bus with full care and caution and when he reached near the place of accident, a tractor-trolley being driven rashly and negligently without any front and rear lights, came from the opposite side. Bus No. PJG 1306 was also coming from Chandigarh side and the driver of the bus with a view to save the tractor-trailor turned his vehicle to the right and as a result front side of Bus No. PJG 1306 struck against Bus No. PNB 1125. It was thus alleged that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailor.
3. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident in which Balbir Singh sustained fatal injuries was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus No. PBN 1125 and the claimants being the widow, minor daughters and a minor son of the deceased were entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,15,200/-. It is against this Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed by the respondents by contending that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation on account of the death of Balbir Singh, as it was Balbir Singh, on account of whose negligence the accident took place. Cross-objections have been filed by the claimants claiming enhanced amount of compensation.
4. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for appellants in the appeal argued that the accident in question took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor-trailor and, therefore, Surjit Kaur and other claimants were not entitled to any compensation. It was submitted that the tractor-trailor was going from Kharar to Kurali as was the Bus driven by Balbir Singh, whereas Bus No.PBN 1125 was proceeding from Kurali side to Chandigarh side. Balbir Singh driver of Bus No. PJG 1306 while taking over the tractor-trailor steered his vehicle towards right and as a result hit against Bus No. PBN 1125 coming from opposite direction, though driver of Bus No. PBN 1125 tried to steer towards his left, yet the accident could not be avoided. It is under these circumstances argued that the fault lay with Balbir Singh and the findings returned to the contrary are not sustainable. In support of his contention, learned AAG relied upon the statement of
PW 3, wherein he stated that the bus which was coming from Chandigarh side passed by his side and there was a tractor-trailor near the culvert and the bus coming from Chandigarh side had crossed that trolley. He thus tried to draw an inference from these sentences of Mohinder Singh, PW3 that the bus driven by Balbir Singh was on the right side of the road and it was on that account that the accident took place.
5. I have gone through the evidence of PW3 Mohinder Singh, PW5 Kaka Singh and RW1 Jasbir Singh carefully with the help of the learned Counsel. Kaka Singh, PW5, while appearing as a witness categorically stated that the bus which was coming from the side of Kurali tried to over-take the tractor-trolley and the driver of the bus which was coining from Chandigarh side, took his bus to the extreme left but in attempt to overtake the tractor-trolley, the bus coming from Kurali side struck against the bus which was coming from Chandigarh side and as a result of this accident, Balbir Singh, driver of the bus died at the spot. He further stated that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus coming from Kurali side. Nothing could be brought out in the cross examination of Kaka Singh to discard his testimony. The witness in his cross-examination stated that the tractor-trolley was coming from Kurali side, which he saw from a distance of 100 yards. Jasbir Singh, RW1 deposed that he was the conductor on duty on Bus No. PBN 1125 and that the trolley emerged from the link road and since the bus coming from Chandigarh side tried to over take the tractor-trolley, the bus collided with the other bus, though the driver tried to take his bus to the extreme left and that Darshan Singh, driver of Bus No. PBN 1125 succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The Conductor in cross-examination stated that the trolley after emerging from the Link Road turned towards Kurali, thus he tried to put the entire burden of the accident on the driver, Balbir Singh, who was driving Bus No. PJG 1306. It may be noticed that Jasbir Singh, conductor never appeared as a witness during the investigation of the case. He admitted that a Way-bill is prepared while accompanying a bus as a Conductor, but he did not bring any Way-bill to show that he was on duty on Bus No. PBN 1125 on the fateful day. He brought us other record to show that he was the Conductor on that bus on that day. Mohinder Singh, PW3 testified that Kaka Singh was present at the spot at the time of accident. He was not contradicted to that effect in the cross-examination. As already noticed, the learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence noticed above concluded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus No. PBN1125. Learned Counsel for the appellants cannot draw any support from the statement of Mohinder Singh, PW3. According to Mohinder Singh the bus driven by Balbir Singh had already crossed the tractor-trolley, and if that was so, question of overtaking the tractor-trailor by the driver, Balbir Singh did not arise. According to Kaka Singh, PW5, the tractor-trolley was proceeding towards Kharar and in the written statement the blame is attributed to the driver of the tractor-trailor. It is also not the case in the written statement that the tractor-trolley had entered the main road from the link road or that the accident took place while the driver of the Bus No. PJG 1306 tried to overtake the tractor-trolley. It is also again not mentioned that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of Bus No. PJG 1306. Mohinder Singh, PW3 was not cross-examined by putting a question that the tractor-trolley had emerged from the link road and the driver of Bus No. PJG 1306 tried to overtake the same and at that stage the accident occurred. Further no suggestion was put to him in cross-examination that Bus No. PJG 1306 had come to a wrong side of road at the time of accident. Site plan has not been produced to show that Bus No. PJG 1306 at the time of accident was on its wrong side. Similar suggestion was also not put to Kaka Singh, PW5 when cross-examined by the respondents. It is in this background that no reliance can be placed on the statement of Jasbir Singh, RW1, alleged Conductor of Bus No, PBN 1125. The stand taken by the Jasbir Singh neither finds mention in the written statement filed by the appellant/respondents nor to the suggestions put to the other PWs’ in their cross-examination. It is under these circumstances I concur with the learned Tribunal that no reliance can be placed on the statement of Jasbir Singh, RW1 to the effect that the tractor-trolley had emerged from the link road and Bus proceeding from Chandigarh to Kurali while tried to overtake, struck against the bus coming from Kurali towards Chandigarh, as against this, the version of the claimants is consistent right from the beginning. In the context of the above, it is apt to notice that it is not the case of the appellants/respondents in the written statement that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of Balbir Singh, driver of Bus No. PJG 1306. In fact the entire blame in the written statement is on the negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trolley, whose driver has not been produced by the respondents. Since the respondents have taken contradictory stand in the written statement and while producing evidence no reliance can be placed on their version and in the circumstances, the Tribunal, in my view had rightly concluded that the accident in question, in which, Balbir singh sustained fatal injuries, was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus No. PBN 1125.
6. In view of the aforesaid conclusion arrived at, appeal filed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways and the State of Punjab, being FAO No. 297 of 1985 deserves to be dismissed.
7. Learned Counsel found as a fact that deceased, Balbir Singh, at the time of death was aged about 35 years and was drawing a salary of Rs. 947/- p.m. After disbelieving the testimony of Surjit Kaur, claimant that the monthly salary of Balbir Singh was Rs. 1200/- p.m. and he was contributing a sum of Rs. 800/- p.m. for household expenses, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,15,200/- by taking the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 600/- per month on applying a multiplier of 16.
8. Amar Singh, PW4, Clerk in the Establishment Branch of the office of the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh, appearing as a witness deposed that Balbir Singh was drawing a salary of Rs. 947.10 Ps. on the date of accident and he produced Ex.P2, certificate of salary of Balbir Singh. He further deposed that a driver is entitled to Rs. 15/- per night for the nights he stays outside the Headquarters and a driver is required to stay out for the nights for about 12-13 nights, in a month. In cross-examination, he was, however, unable to refer to any rules under which a driver is entitled to Rs. 15/- per night for staying out from the Headquarters. Balbir Singh, including himself had a family of 5 i.e. himself, wife, two minor daughters and minor son. Even assuming that he was not getting any extra wages for the nights he was required to stay out, there can be no manner of doubt that his wages on the fateful day were Rs. 947/- p.m. and having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the family he had, it can safely be concluded that he must be contributing atleast Rs. 700/- p.m. towards his family or in other words the claimants were dependent on the deceased to the extent of Rs. 700/- per month. In the circumstances, I take the dependency of the claimants as Rs. 700/- per month. Balbir Singh was aged about 35 years at the time of his death and Surjit Kaur, claimant has disclosed her age to be 30 years, while appearing as her own witness. Other claimants are minor and in the circumstances, the Tribunal, in my view, was right in applying a multiplier of 16 for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to the claimants. In the circumstances, the claimants are entitled to a compensation amounting to Rs. 1,34,400/- (700 x 12 x 16). The claimants are further held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation awarded from the date of filing the petition i.e. 10.2.1984 till the date of realisation. The claimants shall share the amount of compensation in the same matter as determined by the Tribunal.
9. For the reasons recorded above, cross-objections No. 67-CII of 1985 filed by the claimants are consequently allowed to the extent indicated above and the appeal being FAO No. 297 of 1985 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.