JUDGMENT
S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The matter here arises from an accident between the tractor HRA-1048 with trolley and a scooter HYA-3947 which occurred on January 22, 1981 at about 1.30 P.M. in the area of village Jalbera on the Ambala-Hissar road. Both the tractor and the scooter were travelling in the same direction when this happened. It resulted in the death of both Tilak Raj, who was driving the scooter as also Ram Sarup, who was sitting on the pillion seat thereof. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-driver, Prem Singh. A sum of Rs, 96,000/- was awarded as compensation to the widow and children of Tilak Raj deceased and Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimants in the case of Ram Sarup deceased.
2. Neither the finding on the issue of negligence nor the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, warrants any interference in appeal.
3. It was the case of the claimants that Tilak Raj and Ram Sarup were coming towards Arnbala Cantt. There were some buffaloes crossing the road near Jalbera chowk as a result of which, the scooter, which was on the left side of the road, was slowed down. Just then a tractor came from behind and tried to over-take the scooter and it was then that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-driver that the trolley came and struck against the scooter as a consequence of which both Tilak Raj and Ram Sarup fell down and sustained serious injuries as a result of which they both later died.
4. The tractor-driver, Prem Singh, on the other hand, took the plea that the scooter had come on to the road from a side road and it then struck against the left side of the tractor trolley. The accident was thus caused due to the negligence of the deceased.
5. As regards the manner’ in which the accident occurred, the case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of PW 4 Waryam Singh and PW 11 Satish Kumar, who both deposed to having witnessed the occurrence. They stated that they were on a motor cycle and were going towards Jalbera chowk when they saw the tractor coming from the opposite side with a scooter going ahead. Some buffaloes came in front of the scooter as a result of which the scooter was stopped and the tractor then came from behind and its trolley struck against the back of the scooter, as a result of which both the scooter-driver and the person sitting on the pillion seat sustained injuries. Further, after causing the accident, the tractor-driver ran away from the spot.
6. Waryam Singh and Satish Kumar went on to depose that after the accident, it was they who -took the injured-Tilak Raj and Ram Samp, to the hospital.
7. To corroborate the testiomny of the two eye-witnesses, there is the statement of PW 5 A.S.I. Narain Singh, who deposed that on receipt of a ruqa from the Civil Hospital, Ambala City, on January 22, 1981, he went there and recorded the statement of Waryam Singh on the basis of which the first information report Exhibit P-3 was recorded. He also deposed to the arrest of the tractor-driver Prem Singh and the challan under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code which was put in court against him in respect of this accident.
8. The only evidence forthcoming from the side of the respondents, with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred, is the statement of the tractor-driver RW 3 Prem Singh. The version, he deposed to, was that he was driving the tractor at the speed of only 10 kilometres per hour, when suddenly 3 or 4 buffaloes started crossing the road. He immediately applied brakes and when the speed had come down to 4 or 5 kilometres per hour, something struck his tractor from behind. He immediately stopped the tractor and saw that the scooter had hit his tractor on the left side of the tractor-trolley. He went on to depose that the people who gathered there, told him that the scooter was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
9. A reading of the evidence brought on record would show that both PW 4 Waryam Singh and PW 11 Satish Kumar have given a consistent account of the occurrence with no contradictions or discrepancies therein to create any doubt in what they had deposed to. To corroborate them, there is the first information report Exhibit P/3, which was recorded soon after the occurrence. The version spelt out there is wholly in accord with their testimony in court.
10. As regards RW 3 Prem Singh, it is pertinent to note that as per his own showing, he did not know how the accident had taken place. He stated that he only heard the noise of a thud, and then found that the scooter had struck the tractor. Further, it will be recalled that he had stated that the people gathered there had told him that the scooter was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. None from amongst such persons has been produced in this case.
11. It is also significant to note that counsel for Prem Singh could not point to anything in the medical evidence on record, which could tend to suggest that the injuries on the person of the deceased were in accord with the scooter having hit into the tractor, rather than the other way round. If it was the scooter that came and hit into the tractor trolley, it is to be expected that Tilak Raj, who was driving the scooter would have suffered injuries on the front part of the body. The injuries on the person of Tilak Raj do not support the version of the tractor-driver.
12. The evidence, as had come on record, amply justifies the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence and no interference is thus warranted in the conclusion that the accident had been caussd entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-driver.
13. The compensation awarded to the claimants can but no means be said to be in any manner excessive or unjustifisd. The evidence shows that Tilak Raj was 41 years of age at the time of his death. He was a Lower-Division Clerk in the Haryana State Electricity Board. At the time of his death, his salary was over Rs 1000/- per month Tilak Raj died leaving behind his widow-Raj Hani who was only 39 years of age and their three minor children who were all dependent upon him. The award of Rs. 96,000/- as compensation to the claimants clearly warrants no interference in appeal.
14. Similarly, in the case of Ram Sarup, deceased, the award of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants cannot be faulted. Ram Sarup was employed as Line Superintendent in the Haryana State Electricity Board. He was about 50 years of age at the time of his death and his salary was over Rs. 1400/- per month. He died leaving behind his 40 years old widow, two daughters and three sons. Both his daughters were married, but all three of his sons were still studying. The ages of the sons range from 17 to 22 years. Counsel for the appellant could suggest no method of calculation on the basis of which the compensation awarded could justify any reduction. Keeping in view, therefore, the age and earnings of the deceased and the dependents that he has left behind no exception can be taken to Rs. 1,00,000/- being awarded as compensation to them.
15. In the result, both the appeals are hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.
