JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. The Claimants have filed the present appeal against the judgment-of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 18.8.1992 by which a total compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- along with interest was awarded to the claimants.
2. The case in brief is that on 19.7.1991 at about 4.30 P.M. Surinder Singh Sasson, Advocate, practicing at Ambala City, was going from Ambala Cantt. to Ambala City on his scooter No. HNA-6775 along with another person who was sitting on the pillion. When he reached the “T point linking Mall road with G.T. Road, a military truck No. 89AF-313205 being driven by Ajay Kumar, Air Man at a high speed suddenly turned towards the right side without blowing any horn or giving any signal as a result of which the scooter dashed against the truck. Both Surinder Singh Sasson and the person sitting on the pillion were injured. They were taken to the Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt. and therefrom to the P.G.I. Chandigarh where Surinder Singh Sasson succumbed to his injuries. A F.I.R. No. 267 dated 19.7.1991 was lodged by Kesar Lal, Home Guard, who was on duty at the ‘T’ point where the accident took place.
3. Smt. Nirmala Kumar, widow of the deceased, along with her three children, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of death of Surinder Singh Sasson. In the claim petition, a total compensation of Rs. 10 lacs was claimed. It was averred that the deceased was 41 years of the age at the time of his death and was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as an Advocate.
4. A written statement was filed by the Union of India wherein it has been stated that the driver of the Air Force Vehicle had given the signal by hand and light indicator was also given while turning to the right hand side. It has also been stated that Surinder Singh Sasson was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner and he was coming at a very high speed and wanted to overtake the Air Force Vehicle as a result of which the accident took place. It has further been stated that the Air Force Authorities have already exonerated the Air Man in the court of inquiry.
5. The claimants examined Kamal Kumar PW2 as a witness who deposed that on the day of accident when he was going from Ambala Cantt. to Ambala City on his Moped, an Air Force truck which was going ahead of him and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner suddenly took turn towards the right hand side and Surinder Singh Sasson, who was driving the Scooter along with a person on his pillion seat, got entangled in the Air Force Vehicle. Surinder Singh Sasson was removed to the Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt. and therefrom to the P.G.I., Chandigarh, where he succumbed to his injuries. It is also stated that a report Ex.PI was lodged by him.
6. In rebuttal, Ajay Kumar, driver of the Air Force Vehicle, appeared as RW1 as his own witness and made a statement that he had given the signal while turning to the right hand .side and the Traffic Constable on duty had given the pass-on signal to him. He has also stated that while he was in the process of turning his vehicle towards the right hand side, the scooterist came from the rear and struck against the right hand side front wheel of the truck. It has further been stated that court of inquiry was held against him and he was exonerated by the Air Force Authorities.
7. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal held that the accident took place because of the contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles.
8. The question that arises in the present appeal is-
Whether the accident took place because of the contributory negligence of the driver of the scooter as well as the driver of the Air Force truck?
9. It has been argued by Mr. S.K. Jain, counsel for the claimants, that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. He has referred to the statement of Kamal Kumar PW2 who had stated that the Air Force Vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner suddenly turned towards the right hand side without giving any signal as a result of which the deceased who was coming behind the truck got entangled with the Air Force Vehicle and ultimately succumbed to his injuries. Learned counsel has further argued that the FIR in the present case was lodged by Home Guard Kesar Lal who was performing traffic duty near the place of accident. Kesar Lal has stated in the F.I.R. that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Air Force Vehicle. He has further deposed that the driver of the Air Force Vehicle suddenly turned towards the right hand side without giving any signal. Although Kesar Lal has not been examined as a witness, however, the learned counsel contends that as certified copy of the F.I.R. can always be taken into consideration by the Courts. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in Bansi Yadav and Anr. and Krishan Kumar and Anr., (2004-2)137 P.L.R. 234. On the basis of the above, it is argued that it was the driver of the Air Force truck who was responsible for causing the accident.
10. Mr. Sehgal, counsel for the Union of India, has however, controverted the arguments raised by the appellants. It has been argued that there is no cogent evidence that the accident took place because of the negligence of the truck driver. Learned counsel has further argued that the pilion rider has not been examined as a witness. Learned counsel has lastly referred to the statement made by the driver of the offending vehicle wherein he has stated that when he was taking turn towards the right hand side then the speed of the truck was zero to 10 kms. per hour. Learned counsel has further stated that as the truck was going ahead of the scooter, therefore, the scooter driver ought to have been vigilant. On the basis of the above, it is argued that the accident took place because of the negligence of the scooter driver.
11. A perusal of the entire evidence in the present case clearly shows that Kesal Lal, who was on traffic duty near the place of accident, was prompt in lodging the F.I.R., it has been stated that the driver of the truck suddenly turned towards the right hand side without giving any signal. It has further been mentioned in the F.I.R. that the driver of the truck was driving in a rash and negligent manner.
12. In the present case, the F.I.R. has been tendered in evidence which is a public document and no objection has been raised with regard to the contents of F.I.R. It has been held in Bansi Yadav’s case (supra) that where the liability in tort is to be fixed on the preponderance of probabilities, therefore, the F.I.R. being a public document is exparte admissible in evidence.
13. Apart from the above, there is also the statement of PW2 Kamal Kumar who is an independent witness. This was also driving his vehicle and was coming just behind the scooter. He has clearly stated that the driver of the truck was driving in a rash and negligent manner and he turned towards the right hand side without giving any signal.
14. The accident has taken place on the G.T. Road and if a vehicle which is going ahead suddenly turns towards the right hand side then the person who is following him is obviously taken unawares and, therefore, this can always result in an accident. In the present case, as the vehicle had turned right without any prior signal, therefore, the driver of the Air Force Vehicle was fully responsible for causing the accident.
15. In view of the above, the findings of the Tribunal that the accident took place because of the contributory negligence of both the drivers cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is held that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of Ajay Kumar who was driving the Air Force Vehicle.
16. The next question that arises is as to what is the compensation that the claimants are entitled to receive.?
17. It has come in evidence that the deceased Surinder Singh Sasson was a practicing Advocate at Ambala. He was 41 years of age at the time of his death and his earnings are stated to be Rs. 5,000/- per month. As no income tax returns of the deceased have been filed, therefore, the Tribunal has taken the annual dependency of the claimants at Rs. 20,000/-. The Tribunal while relying upon the judgment in Joginder Kaur and Ors. v. State of Haryana, has applied a multiplier of 18. There is no challenge by the Union of India either to the quantum of compensation awarded or to the multiplier applied. Hence, the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the award of compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- are upheld. Apart from the above, the claimants are also held entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as funeral expenses and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- as expenses for loss of consortium. The claimants are also held entitled to interest, as awarded by the Tribunal.
18. In view of the above, it is held that the accident took place because of the negligence of the driver of the Air Force truck. It is further held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 3,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 27.8.1991 till realisation. The entire amount of compensation awarded shall be apportioned equally amongst all the claimants. The respondents shall pay the entire amount of compensation after deducting the amount already paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.