Pritam Kaur And Ors. vs Peara Singh And Ors.
1986 Latest Caselaw 127 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Wad, J.

(1) In an accident which took place on 17.10.1966 on G.T. Road Sardar Peara Singh died due to the severe injuries received by him. The claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that there was no evidence to show that either the motor cycle No. DLM-2898 on which the deceased was riding or the D.T.C. bus No. DLP-868 was responsible for the accident.

(2) On 17.10.1966 the deceased, Sardar Peara Singb, was riding on the motor cycle No. DLM-2898 as a pillion rider, and was going from Sabzimandi to Shakti Nagar side. Near Birla Mill a tonga came from the right side with a high speed and hit the motor cycle. Due to this impact both the Driver of the motor cycle and the deceased fell down. A D.T.C. bus which was coming from behind hit the deceased and ran over him. He was removed to the hospital by the Driver of the motor cycle and the Driver of the bus. Doctor Vishnu Kumar, (Public Witness -2) conducted the postmortem examination and he found the following injuries on the person of the deceased : "(1) Lacerated wound 1.5x0.6 cm. to the Lt. parietal eminence. (2) Multiple abrasions in 8x3 cm. area on the back of right elbow. (3) Abrasion 3x2 cm. on the outer aspect of right buttock below the laic crest, (4i Lacerated wound 3x1 cm. on upper 1/3 of Rt. leg skin with fracture tibia seen. Fracture both bones present at this stage. (5) Abrasion in 26 X 5 cm. area on the right leg in upper 2/3 from rt. knee enter medial surface (ant.in upper part and medically in lower part) (6) Abrasion 5 X 0 cm. cortical above right medial mallolus. (7) Multiple small abrasion on the back and the front of left. (8) Extensive abrasion in 56 X 7 cm. starting from the back of the lower part of left thigh going upward and forward to the lateral surface of middle region of thigh and up to laic areast. The direction of lines on abrasion are verticle. (9) Multiple small abrasion on the left wrist back (10) Abrasion 5x2 cm in the anterior abdomening wall outer part in the lumber region-left. (11) Abrasion in 3x1.8 cm. on the left scapular region. (12) Multiple small abrasions in the right scapular 312 region. (13) Abrasion 19 X 12 cm. on the left buttock and perineum left half near it."

(3) The Doctor opined that the death was caused due to hameorrhage and shock consequent to multiple injuries mainly ruptured kidney and spleen and left lung. He was cross-examined and a suggestion was made to him that the injuries in question could be caused by the vehicle like tonga. The Doctor negatived the suggestion and said that such injuries could be caused by a heavy vehicle and not by a tonga. He also categorically stated that such injuries are not possible if a person merely falls from a motor cycle. On behalf of the claimants, Darbara Singh (Public Witness -4) was examined. His statement was also recorded by the police after the accident and he was also examined in the criminal case. He bad stated that when the deceased fell down he tried to get up twice but could not do so because a Dtc bus came from clock tower side at a high speed and the left portion of the bus struck against the deceased and he was run over by the bus. According to him when the deceased fell down from the motor cycle the bus was still at a distance of 50 to 60 yards. The driver of the motor cycle, who was himself Respondent No. 1, namely Sardar Peara Singh. could not state in his evidence as to how the deceased was injured. He only stated as to bow the tonga hit the motor cycle resulting into both himself and the pillion rider falling down. It appears that before falling down the motor cycle had gone little ahead. When he returned to the spot of the accident he heard that someone was run over by the bus and then he saw that the deceased had sustained the injuries. Naturally the bus had come from behind and this witness had no opportunity to actually see the impact of the bus on the deceased. The respondents have produced, Ram Phal, RW-2, as a witness who is a Desu employee. According to him he had seen the bus at the bus stop which was about 200 yards from the place of accident. After the fall of the pillion rider from the motor cycle because of the hitting of the tonga he saw the bus coming at a slow speed. He then stated, "After striking against the rehra the person who fell down was by the side of the left rear wheel of the bus " The respondents, however, did not examine either the Driver of the bus or the Conductor of the bus. It may also be noted that in the criminal case the bus Driver was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted.

(4) After the assessment of the evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion "that after the deceased fell down from the motor cycle as a result of the impact with a tonga, he was run over by bus No.DLP-868 driven by the respondent No. 3." The Tribunal was particularly impressed by the fact that Dr. Vishnu Kumar PW-2, had stated in his cross-examination that the multiple injuries sustained by the deceased could not be caused by a tonga and he cams to the conclusion that the deceased was run over by the bus. However, the Tribunal fell in an error recording the final finding that it was a case of mere accident. It is difficult to understand as to how the Tribunal came to such a conclusion after recording the judicial finding that the deceased was crushed under the bus. The Tribunal stated that the circumstances that the bus came to a stop there and then indicates that it was not being driven at a very fast or excessive speed at the time of the accident- For this purpose the Tribunal has relied on the evidence of PW-4, Darbara Singh I have gone through the evidence of Darbara Singh and it is not correct to state that Darbara Singh had stated that the bus had come to a stop prior to the accident. In fact, what Darbara Singh had said is that the bus was coming at a fast speed and it had run over the deceased. The Respondent's 513 witness Ram Phal had stated that the bus was about 200 yds. from the place of accident. After the bus had left the bus stop it very likely that it had picked up the speed which the driver could not control. The number of injuries and the seriousness of the injuries speak for themselves I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the bus in question was being run rashly and negligently. If it was running slow it was possible for the bus driver to watch the deceased from a distance and to stop the bus far behind the place where the accident had taken place. Darbara Singh had stated that at the time when the pillion rider had fallen the bus was 50 to 60 yards away. I, therefore, hold that the D.T.C. bus in question caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving and was, therefore, responsible for the death of Peara Singh.

(5) The Tribunal has found on evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 600.00 atthe time of his death. He was working as a partner in the firm named Air Marshal Industries, Jaipur Relying on the evidence of his wife the Tribunal accepted the age of the deceased as 45 years. Smt. Pritam Kaur, the deceased's wife, had further stated that the deceased was giving Rs. 300 to Rs. 400.00 per month towards the household expenses. The Tribunal took his contribution to the family at Rs. 300.00 per month applying the multiplier of 15 came to the confusion that Rs. 54,000.00 would be the compensation payable. The Tribunal thereafter deducted a sum of Rs. 10,030.00 which the wife had received on account of the insurance and also deducted a sum of Rs. 6600.00 on account of the lump sum payment and uncertainties of life. I find that the entire approach ofthe Tribunal in working out the amount of of compensation was erroneous. Even assuming that his age was 45 years the Tribunal was wrong in holding that his contribution to the family was Rs. 300.00 per month. Considering the fact that the deceased was supporting his family consisting of himself, his wife and five minor children, it can safely be said that the contribution of the deceased towards his family was not less than Rs 400.00 per month. I, therefore, hold that the contribution of the deceased towards his family was Rs. 400.00 per month. In the absence of better evidence of longevity of life. I wo.ild agree with the Tribunal that the multiplier should be taken as fifteen. On this basis the compensation would be worked out at Rs. 72.000.00 and no deductions can be made on account of the insurance amount which the wife received. So also no deductions are now permissible on account of lump sum payment considering the high rate of inflation. The accident took place in 1966 and the compensation would now be paid after twenty years. I have also taken into account the large family which the deceased was required to support. At , time of the accident all the five children were minor. Three of them were daughters and two sons. He had an additional responsibility of giving them education and at least making some provision for the-marriage of the daughters. The claimants would also be entitled to 6 per cent simple interest, from the date of the application till the date of the payment. The Respondent No. 5, Delhi Transport Corporation is liable to pay the said amount of compensation and the interest. The D.T.C. is directed to draw up a cheque for the said amount in the name of the Registrar, of this court and deposit the same with the Registrar, within two months from today. The Registrar, after issuing notice to the parties, shall disburse the amount.

(6) For the reasons stated above the appeal is allowed.