B. D. Agarwal, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THIS appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Additional District Judge), Saharanpur, dated July 27, 1978. Dharampal Chopra, aged about 63 years, was on way back to Saharanpur from his brick-kiln situate at a distance of about 2 miles on November 8, 1975, at about 9.45 a. m. on his scooter Rajdoot No. U. S. V. 8291. Bus No. H. R. D. 4669 belonging to the State of Haryana and driven by respondent no 1 was proceeding from behind. Chopra was to his left. The bus, however, dashed against him and dragged him to some distance. This caused severe injuries to the victim who succumbed to them at the spot. First Information Report was lodged the same day followed by post-mortem examination which revealed that the death took place due to the fracture of the skull and injuries caused to the brain. On December 2, 1975, the appellants before us, who are the widow and the son of the deceased respectively filed a Claim Petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Saharanpur. The mother of Dharampal Chopra was also one of the claimants. She, however, died on June 17, 1976, during the pendency of the petition before the Tribunal and by an order of the Tribunal dated October 12, 1976, the appellant-claimants have been shown as her legal representatives as well. The claimants contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the respondent no. 1. The deceased was earning between rupees sixteen thousand to rupees twenty thousand per year from the business carried on by him in partnership with his son under the name and style of M/s Bricks Supply Co. Ambala Road, Saharanpur. The compensation claimed was a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 including a sum of Rs. 5000 for the damage to the scooter. In defence it was refuted that the accident took place due to any rashness or negligence on the part of respondent no. 1. The plea raised was that the cover on the right side of the scooter engine driven by the deceased had fallen down on the right and he took a turn to the right in order to pick that up and this resulted in his being dashed against the bus. The amount of compensation claimed was also disputed asserting that this was highly exaggerated. The Tribunal came to the finding that the scooter was being driven by Dharampal Chopra at a slow speed; the bus, however, was driven rashly and it was on account of negligence and rashness on the part of the driver of the bus that the accident took place. The theory that the panel of the scooter had fallen and the deceased took a turn to the right to pick that up was disbelieved. It was pointed, considering the testimony of respondent no. 1 himself, that if he had taken care to reduce the speed of the bus at the sight of the deceased proceeding ahead on the scooter, the mishap may have been averted. On the point of compensation the Tribunal stated that it will be presumed that the appellant no. 2 (the wife) was being maintained by the deceased. In regard to the son it was observed that he was running the brick-kiln business in partnership with his father and the evidence does not disclose that he was driving pecuniary benefit from the father as such during his life time. The Tribunal has then gone on to consider the assets left over by the deceased and observed that they are of the value of nearly 2, 85, 000/-. This means, in the opinion of the Tribunal, that the widow and the son respectively would inherit or be benefited to the extent of about Rs. 1, 40, 000/- each besides getting share in the bank account maintained by the victim. The life expectancy of Dharampal Chopra was estimated at about 70 years and it was said that if the income of the deceased were taken at Rs. 15.000/- per annum, the amount in all would come to Rs. 1, 05, 000/-only (Rs. 15, 000 x 7) and since the assets which would pass on to these claimants exceed this amount, therefore, they cannot lay claim to any compensation whatsoever. The Claim Petition was thus dismissed in entirety on this basis.
(3.) AGGRIEVED, the widow and the son of Dharampal Chopra deceased have preferred this appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. None has appeared for the respondents despite notice. So far as the cause resulting in the accident dated November 8, 1975 is concerned, the evidence adduced from the claimants' side clearly bears it out. P. W. Gandharva Pal, the son of the victim, was going along side on a motor cycle. He had just taken the motor cycle ever the right Patri which led to his escape. He has narrated in detail an eye-witness account of the accident. P. W. Shamsha was on way to the factory where he is employed when he saw the accident and he was also helpful in catching hold of the driver. He supports the claimants' version. D. W. Darshan Lal, respondent no. 1, came to the witness box, but, as the Tribunal observed, his evidence indicates that there was an attempt to overtake the scooter. The distance obtaining between the two was got reduced because the bus was being driven at a speed higher than that of the scooter. It has been found that this was maintaining a speed of nearly 50-60 kms. in excess of the permitted normal speed of 40 kms. per hour only while the scooter was slow in its movement. The Tribunal may not be said to have erred consequently in reaching the finding it did on this aspect of the matter after considering the evidence placed on the record.;