JUDGMENT
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1.This is claimant’s appeal for the grant of compensation.
2. The background which led to the filing of this appeal is that the appellant Sawaran Kaur, who is the widow of one Bachan Singh, filed a claim petition under Sections 92-A and 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of death of her husband Bachan Singh in a vehicular accident. The appellant had alleged in the claim petition that on 22.9.1986 her husband Bachan Singh (since deceased) and Tilak Raj were proceeding to Karnal from Samalkha in truck No. HYA 9487 which was being driven by Tilak Raj deceased at a very moderate speed. When the truck reached near village Siwah on the G.T. Road, bus No. HYG 2846, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver Mehar Chand, respondent No. 1, was coming from the opposite direction on the wrong side of the road and hit the truck on its front side, As a result of the impact, Tilak Raj, driver of the truck, died on the spot, whereas Bachan Singh received multiple injuries. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Panipat, where he succumbed to his injuries. According to the appellant-claimant, the accident had taken place due to the fault of the driver of the bus, Mehar Chand. As such, the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimant on account of death of Bachan Singh.
3. In the written statements filed by the State of Haryana and Mehar Chand, driver of the bus, the allegations made in the claim petition were denied.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
(1) Whether Bachan Singh died because of the rash and negligent driving of bus No. HYG 2846 by respondent Mehar Chand as alleged? OPA.
(2) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the claimant entitled and from whom? OPA.
(3) Relief.
In order of prove her cause, the claimant-appellant had examined Sadhu Ram, Ahlmad, AW 1; Arjan Dass, Registration Clerk, SDM Office, Karnal, AW 2; Niranjan Singh, AW 4; A.S.I. Phool Singh, AW 5; Karam Singh, Photographer, AW 6; and Amarjit, AW 7; besides her own statement as AW 3.
5. The learned Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 had stated that a case under
Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, was registered due to the said accident against the driver of the bus and the F.I.R. was recorded at the instance of
Rajmal. The said Rajmal was not produced in the witness-box. Only Phool Singh, who along with Rajmal, an alleged eyewitness to the occurrence, was examined as AW 5 by the claimant.
6. Mehar Chand, driver of the bus, had also appeared before the Tribunal as RW 1. This witness could not depose in clear terms whether the truck was empty or loaded at the relevant time. The Tribunal on issue No.1 had returned a finding that the fatal accident had taken place due to the contributory negligent driving of the driver of the bus and that of the truck. It was held by the Tribunal that the driver of the truck was more responsible for the accident than the driver of the bus. The Tribunal held that the liability of the bus driver was 40 per cent whereas of the truck driver was 60 per cent for the accident in question. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the claimant. Resultantly, the claim petition was dismissed and no compensation to the claimant was awarded by the Tribunal.
7. The learned counsel for the claimant had contended that Tribunal had not granted compensation as it found discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses and the deceased was not travelling in the truck.
8. 1 have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
9. The doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Bachan Singh deceased on 23.9.1986 had stated that the police had furnished information that the deceased furnished information that the deceased died on account of toad accident. In this case, F.I.R. was registered against Mehar Chand, driver of the bus, under
Sections 279/337/427 and 304, Indian Penal Code, on 22.9.1986. The respondents have not been able to prove that the deceased Bachan Singh had died in some other, accident, other than the one in question. There was not even a remote suggestion by the respondents at the time of recording statements of the witnesses that Bachan Singh deceased was not travelling in the truck at the time which had collided with the Haryana roadways bus No. HYG 2846. In fact, the respondents had tried to extract from the witnesses in their cross-examination that the driver of the bus was
not at fault for the accident in question. The only plea raised by the respondents is that the driver of the bus was not negligent and rash and the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the truck driver. which had collided with the Haryana Roadways bus No. HYG 2846. In fact, the respondents had tried to extract from the witnesses in their cross-examination that the driver of the bus was not at fault for the accident in question. The only plea raised by the respondents is that the driver of the bus was not negligent and rash and the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the truck driver.
10. Whether the accident took place due to the negligence of the bus or the truck driver or both of them, it hardly matters for the claimant in the instant case. The only thing, which is to be seen, is whether the claimant’s husband Bachan Singh had died in the accident which had taken place between bus No. HYG 2846 and truck No. HYA 9487 on 22.9.1986. In view of what has been discussed earlier and keeping in view the report under
Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, submitted by the police in the trial court in criminal case registered against the bus driver, which is Exh. A-10, with the claim petition, this court has reached the conclusion that Bachan Singh deceased was travelling in truck No. HYA 9487 which collided with Haryana Roadways bus. As a result of collision, Bachan Singh, husband of the claimant, had died in the alleged accident.
11. On the question of quantum of compensation, it has come in evidence that the deceased, who was 49 years of age, was plying a truck and was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month. The claimant has restricted her claim only for Rs. 1,00,000/-. Taking into consideration the monthly income and age of the deceased, claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation as claimed by her.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed and claimant is awarded Rs. 1,00,000/-as compensation with 12 per cent interest from the date of the claim petition. No order as to costs.