- (1.) On December 21, 1971 at 9.30 a.m. Chaman Lal deceased 32 years old, working as an officer Superintendent in the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana was coming on a bicycle from the side of Ludhiana Town and trying to enter the University premises when he was run over by Car No. PUA 825. As a result of the injuries sustained by him in this accident, he lost his life. His widow, three minor children and two old parents filed a claim petition which came up for hearing before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana. EVen though a claim for Rs. 2,50,000/- was put in, yet the learned Tribunal did not admit the same on the ground that the accident took place as a result of the negligence of the deceased himself. The claimants have come up in appeal before me.
(2.) Before the learned Tribunal, they relied on the ocular version given by Surinder Kumar PW-4 and Telu Ram PW-5. Both of them were the employes of the University and coming on bicycles along with the deceased at the material time. They have unanimously stated that Surinder Kumar PW-4 was going ahead on the bicycles followed by the deceased and Telu Ram PW-5 Surinder Kumar PW-4 and did give a hand signal indicating that he was going towards the University side. The witness succeeded in crossing the road without any mishap, but the car struck against the cycle of Chaman Lal deceased, in such a manner that his body got entangled in the mudguard. The car could stop only at a distance of about 6/7 feet. The registration book of the car shows that it was an Ambassador make and 1970 model. The learned Tribunal did not accept the version given by these two witnesses on the curious reasoning that it was apparent from the evidence that Chaman Lal deceased tried to follow Surinder Kumar PW-4 without independently thinking whether the road was free from traffic or not. If the three cyclists were driving aprallel to each other and one of them was ahead of the other two by one or two feet, it was quite enough for the leading cyclists to have given the signal. The distance between cyclists indicates that the car was coming at such a high speed that it could not save the cyclist who was following the leading cyclist at a distance of about 1 or 2 feet only. The car was not more than two years old on the road on the date of the accident. But at that time, its brackes must have been in perfect order. Even then the car did not stop immediately after the impact and drove on for a few feet more. These telltale circumstances clearly indicate that the accident took place as result of the negligence of the car driver only. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on this point is, therefore, reversed.
(3.) Coming now to the question of compensation I might observe that life expectancy towards the end of 71 and beginning of 72 has been taken to be 70 years in large number of cases. The deceased was 32 years old only at the time of the accident. In other words his life was cut short by 38 years. He was working as an officer Superintendent in the Agricultural University, Ludhiana drawing total amounts at the rate of Rs. 723/- per month. It cannot be disputed that in due course of time his position in the University service would have become much better and he would have drawn higher emoluments also. I am making this observations in the light of the view taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bishan Devi and others v. Surbaksh Singh and others, 1979 AIR(SC) 1862. In that case, the Supreme Court while deciding the case of a Patwari observed that in future he was likely to spend more money on his defendants. Be that as it may, the deceased apart from living widow and three minor children was expected to give some monetary help to his old parents, also. In that situation, I hold he was spending only Rs. 173/- p.m. on his own upkeep and contributing Rs. 550/- p.m. towards the upkeep of his dependants. Their annual dependency value, therefore, comes to Rs. 6,600/-. In Lachman Singh and others v. Gurmit Kaur and others,1979 PLR 1, a Full Bench of this Court fixed the compensation payable to the claimants of the deceased by accepting a multiple of 16 of their annual dependency value, there the life was cut short by 37 years. I adopt the same multiple in the instant case, also. The compensation determined in this manner comes to Rs. 1,05,600/- only.;