K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE appeal is for the enhancement of claim for compensation at the instance of the claimants who were the widow and the daughters of the deceased. He was 37 years of age and he had taken training in Poultry farming from Animal Husbandry Department. He also owned agricultural lands of about 3 acres.
(2.) THE accident which was said to have been taken place when he was going on a scooter and met with a collision with the bus belonging to Punjab Roadways. The Tribunal found on evidence under the issue as to whether the driver of the Punjab Roadways was responsible for the accident, that indeed the accident had taken place only on account of negligence of the driver of the bus, who was attempting to overtake a truck and went to the wrong side of the road to come in a collision with the scooter. Quite inconsistently with the same reasoning, the Tribunal also held that the collision with the scooterist had come about only when the scooterist was trying to overtake the vehicle going in its front and if he had been more careful, the accident could not have taken place. The Tribunal also observed that when the accident was in the morning, the driver of the bus had still put on the headlights to indicate that he was overtaking another vehicle and that he was proceedings on the other side of the road and indicating that he should have a right of way before the other vehicle coming from the opposite direction further went on. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the liability for the deceased and the driver of bus as 75% and 25%, respectively. I cannot accept the finding of the Tribunal as regard the contributory negligence, since the Tribunal which was attempting to found the cause for the accident had already observed that it was only the negligence of the driving of the driver of the bus that caused the accident. To say that a scooterist could have been more careful to avoid the collusion cannot lead to an inference that he had also contributed to the accident. Normally the accident is result of some amount of lack of care and in motor accident setting, he only examine as to who is responsible for the accident. If the Tribunal would find that the driver of the bus was guilty of rash and negligent driving, unless it is held that another person was also rash and negligent, the question of contributory negligence does not arise. The reasoning of the Tribunal that the scooterist could have been more careful, is not the same thing saying that the scooterist was also negligent. I will, therefore, set aside the finding that there was a case of contributory negligence against the deceased.
(3.) WHILE assessing the compensation, the Tribunal took the income at Rs. 5,000/ - from his two sources, namely, agricultural lands and poultry farming. A.W. 6 had been examined to say that the deceased used to purchase poultry feeds from him and A.W. 5 was examined to say that the deceased used to sell the grains from his land through him.;