R.N.Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the claimant against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated February 14, 1972, by which he was given Rs. 100/ - as compensation.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the claimant was traveling from Patran to Patiala in his car bearing No. PNA -550 between 2.15 and 2.30 p.m. on September 30, 1969. When he was going towards Lila Bhawan side from Military area, a pick up Van No. P.N.T. 5534 was coming from the side road on the back side of Rajindra Hospital at a very road high speed. The driver of the van did not blow the horn and it struck against the car of the claimant at the crossing of two roads. The claimant on account of the impact suffered shock, injuries on head, right arm, leg and chest. The claimant was working as an Executive Engineer in the Punjab State Electricity Board and was drawing Rs. l050/ - per month as salary. After the accident, he was admitted in the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where he remained as an indoor patient from the date of accident to October 14, 1969. He was thereafter advised three weeks' rest. He incurred Rs. 500/ - as expenses for his treatment. He claimed Rs. 25,000/ - on account of personal damages and Rs. 5,000/ - as damage to the car. The claim was contested by the Respondents who inter alia pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the claimant, that the driver of the pick up van saw the car from a distance of 15 or 16 yards and slowed down the speed of the van and that the claimant did not suffer any injury on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the van. The Tribunal held that the driver of the van contributed to the extent of 10 per cent for the accident. It assessed the total compensation of the claimant on account of shock and suffering at Rs. 1,000/ -. It, however, awarded him Rs. 100/ - on the ground that the driver of the van was liable to contribute 10 per cent of the compensation for the reasons given above. It dismissed his claim of Rs. 5,000/ - made on account of damage to the car. The claimant has come up in appeal to this Court against the judgment of the Tribunal. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that Respondent No. 3, the driver of the van, is solely responsible for the accident and that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that he was responsible to the accident to the extent of 10 per cent. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents is that it was the claimant who is liable for the accident and that he is not entitled to any damages.
(3.) IN order to determine the above question, it is necessary to find out whether any of the roads was a main road as defined in Section 77 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') or not. Section 77 states that the State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette or by the erection at suitable places of the appropriate traffic sign referred to in Part 'A' of the Ninth Schedule, designate certain roads as main roads for the purposes of the Regulations contained in the Tenth Schedule. Item No. 8 of Ninth Schedule gives the traffic sign relating to main roads: It has not been brought on the record that any such sign was displayed at the crossing where the accident took place. No notification has been produced in which the road on which the claimant was proceeding in his car was designated as the 'main road'. In the absence of the aforesaid evidence it cannot be held that the road on which the claimant was going, was a main road. In case, neither of the roads was a main road, the duty of both the drivers was to slow down the vehicle when approaching the road intersection and not to enter the intersection until they had become aware that they were doing so without endangering the safety of persons thereon. In the present case, it is in evidence that when both the vehicles entered the intersection, the van was being driven at a speed of 30 kilometers per hour and the car at 25 miles, that is 40 kilometers per hour. That shows that the drivers of both the vehicles while entering the intersection were driving their respective vehicles at a high speed. Clause 6 of the Tenth Schedule says that the driver of a motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection, a road junction or a road corner, and shall not enter any such intersection or junction until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon. In the present case, in my view, it was the duty of both the drivers to have slowed down the vehicle while they were approaching the intersection. Both of them, however, failed to do so. If one of the drivers had been slightly cautious, the main accident could be averted. There is sample evidence on the record to show that the van struck against the right door of the car at the road intersection. Thereafter, both the vehicles proceeded in the same direction and struck against the house of R.W. 1 Joginder Singh. In my view both the parties were actually negligent. A similar view was taken by me in the Tourist Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. Ambala City and Anr. v. Dr. Om Parkash and anr. : 1973 A.C.J. 361.;