JUDGMENT
S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The matter here concerns the claim for compensation put forth by the mother, brothers and sisters of Ramji Singh, deceased, who is said to have been killed by the rash and negligent driving of the Haryana Roadways Bus HRJ- 4123.
2. This occurrence took place at about 12.00 noon on May 29, 1982 near the rice sheller on the Narwana-Patran Road
3. According to the claimants, Ramji Singh deceased was carrying lunch for his mother, who was working as a labourer at the rice-sheller when the Haryana Roadways Bus HRJ-4123 coming from the opposite direction came on to the wrong side of the road and hit into the deceased, as a result of which he was thrown away. Ramji Singh died at the spot.
4. Ram Kishan, the driver of the bus. denied that any accident had been caused by the bus The plea put forth by him being that he heard that “some death has taken place as a result of a fall from the tractortrolley”. The General Manager, Haryana Roadways had a some what different version to give, namely; that when the bus reached near the rice-sheller, the bus-driver saw a tractor-trolley coming on the middle of the road from the side of Patran. Ramji Singh deceased and some other passengers were in that trolley. All of a sudden, Ramji Singh jumped on the right side of the road and fell down. The bus-driver turned his bus towards his right side in order to save the deceased as there were some trucks standing on the left in front of the rice-sheller. The bus was immediately stopped. It neither thouched nor struck the deceased and the deceased thus died due to his own negligence.
5. In support of their case, the claimants examined A.W. 3 Dewan Singh, the father of Ramji Singh deceased and A.W.4 Ram Kishan as eye-witnesses to the occurence. A reading of the testimony of AW 3 Dewan Singh would show that the Tribunal rightly did not rely upon his testimony. In the first instance, it deserves, note that according to the claimants, the accident had been caused by the bus coming from the opposite direction whereas Dewan Singh doposed that the bus had come from the rear. Further, this witness has come-forth with no plausible explanation to account for his being there at that time. What he deposed in this behalf was that he was on his way to the gurdwara, but there was no particular reason nor any occasion for him to have been going there at that time. Further, according to him, he had gone to the police station after the occurrence, where the report was lodged on his behalf by his companion Lachhman Singh, whereas Assistant Sub Inspector Ajit Singh stated that the statement was recorded on the bridge of the canal minor in the area of villaga Kahangarh Not only this, Dewan Singh also deposed that the deceased was taken to the Hospital from the place of; occurrence, but according to Assistant Sub-Inspector Ajit Singh, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.
6. The testimony of the other eyewitness A.W. 4 Ram Kishan, howavsr, stands on a different footing. According to him, he was working outside the rice shelter when he saw a bus coming at a very fast speed from the opposite direction and it then struck against Ramji Singh deceased, who was killed at the spot. This witness has not been shown to be in any manner interested in the deceased or the claimants or to have any motive to seek to falsely depose against the respondents. What is more, his name also figures in the first information report. This witness is thus worthy of reliance.
7. The claimants have also brought on record the first information report exhibit PA on the basis of which a case under Section 304A of the India Penal Code was registered against the driver of the bus involved in the accident, namely; Ram Kishan. Further, it will be seen from the statement of A. W. 8 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ajit Singh that Ram Kishan, the driver of the bus was not present at the spot when he went there and he was arrested a couple of days thereafter. This conduct warrants an obvious inference of guilt of the driver.
8. The only witness examined from the side of the respondents was R. W. 1 Ram Kishan, the driver of the bus, who deposed that on the day of the incident, he noticed that the left side of the road had been occupied by a long row of trucks that had been parked there. He was, therefore, driving his bus along side this row of trucks when he found 2 or 3 buffaloes coming from the opposite direction and behind them there was a tractor with a trailor which was loaded with bags and there were 3 or 4 persons sitting on them. Seeing the buffaloes, he slowed down the speed of his bus to 30 K.M P.H. The tractor driver, over-took the buffaloes and after crossing them passed by the side of his bus. The tractor was going at maximum speed at that time and was on that account swerving side-ways. After the bus had crossed the tractor, he heard someone shout that the bus be stopped but he did not pay any heed to it Later, someone shouted that a man had been killed and then some passengers putting their hands on his shoulder forced him to stop the bus. When the bus stopped, all the passengers went out of the bus and ran about 100 yards behind where they saw a young man lying injured on the road. He stated that his bus did not come into contact either with the trtceor or the injured man. A truck standing there was then brought and he was taken in that truck to police station Patran. The Thanedar then came and took him on his motor-cycle to the place of occurrence from where the injured boy was put in his bus and taken to the Civil Hospital, Narwana.
9. It will be seen that the version of the incident as given by the respondents is at variance with the plea put forth by them in their written statement particularly that in the return of the General Manager. It will be recalled that there was no mention there of any buffaloes or any tractor over-taking them nor of the row of trucks standing along the road side. It was also admitted by the bus-driver that he was challenged in respect of this accident and a criminal case was pending against him.
10. The medical evidence on record would show that there were number of injuries on the person on Ramji Singh. The nature and ex tent of these injuries is clearly such as could have been suffered by him by being hit by a motor vehicle.
11. Taking therefore, an over-all view the circumstances and the evidence on record, there can be once escape from the coclusion that the accident had been caused by the bus HRJ-4123 and the cause of it was the rash and negligent driving of the bus-driver. The finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence is accordingly hereby reversed.
12. Turning now to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, the evidence shows that Ramji Singh deceased was only about 16 years of age at the time of his death. He was a rikshaw puller and according to his mother A. W. 1, Smt. Lado, he used to earn Rs. 20/- to Rs. 30/- per day and that he used to support her. Smt Lado gave her age as 40 years while her husband Dewan Singh mentioned his age to be only 35 years. It is apparent that neither of them in fact knows their true age and they were only guessing. Be that as it may. it may be taken that they were in their early forties Ramji Singh, had he lived would in all likelihood, have got married and raised a family and it is only after making allowance for the amount that he could have spared after meeting the expenses of his family, that compensation for his mother can be assessed. There can of course, be no precise yard stick to measure what such loss to the mother could be. Taking generally the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, (1979) 81 P.L.R. 1, into account, in the context of the circumstances and situation of the mother of the deceased and the deceased, it would be fair and just to assess the compensation payable to the mother at Rs. 20,000/-. The brothers and sisters of the deceased are clearly not entitled to any compensation.
13. The mother-Smt. Lado is accordingly hereby awarded a sum of Rs 20,000/- as compensation which she shall be entitled to along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded. This appeal is consequently hereby accepted with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.
