D.V.SEHGAL,J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of an appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the owner-appellants against the award dated 18-5-1982 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, (for short 'the Tribunal') and cross-objections filed by Krishna Devi, Claimant-objector.
(2.) ISHWAR Chand, a sweeper, who was on a cycle, was hit by the offending vehicle, Metador-van, bearing registration No. HPS 916, which was being driven by Abdul Gani, respondent No. 2, at the tri-junction of Shimla-Chandigarh and Manimajra-Chandigarh roads, near Mani Majra, on 1-12-1980, at 4-30 p.m. As a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, Ishwar Chand died on 21-1-1981. A claim application Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') was filed by the Objector before the Tribunal claiming rupees one lac as compensation for the loss suffered by her on account of the death of Ishwar Chand, her husband. The accident was admitted by the appellants as also by respondent No. 2. It was, however, stated that the vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 2 at slow speed on its correct side of the road, when the cyclist Ishwar Chand suddenly entered the main road without observing traffic rules and struck against the vehicle due to his Own fault. It was further stated that respondent No. 2 in fact tried to save the cyclist. Relationship of the claimant with the deceased was also denied. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: (1) Whether the claimant was related to or dependent upon the deceased Ishwar Chand ? If not, whether she has no locus standi to file the claim application ? OPP. (2) Whether the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. HPS-916 driven by respondent No. 2 ? OPP. (3) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation. If so, to what extent and from which of the respondents ? OPP. (4) Relief. Issue No. 1 was not pressed by the appellants and respondent No. 2. So it was decided against them. Under issue No. 2, the Tribunal concluded that the accident took place because of contributory negligence of the cyclist and the driver of the vehicle. It was concluded that the financial loss suffered by the claimant on account of the death of her husband should be apportioned in the ratio of l/3rd and 2/3rd i.e., the appellants and respondent No. 2 were held liable for payment of 2/3rd of the amount of compensation assessed on account of loss suffered by the claimant. Under issue No. 3, it was concluded that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 34,560/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. Relief under issue No. 4 was accordingly afforded to the claimant by making the award under appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It has been contended by Mr. Maharaj Bakhsh Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants, that the accident was not the result of contributory negligence and that the entire negligence is attributable to Ishwar Chand deceased, who suddenly entered the main road from the side of Panchkula Housing Board. Respondent No. 2 was not obliged to slow down the vehicle on the main road. It was for the deceased to have taken care of the fact that there was no approaching vehicle on the main road before he attempted to cross the lame on his cycle. He has placed reliance on Hoshiarpur National Trans-porters Pvt. Ltd. v. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur and Ors. 1979 P.L.R. 618 and District Transport Corporation Society Ltd. and Anr. v. Janak Rani and Ors. 1984 A.C.J. 477, to canvass support for his contention. Mrs. Abha Rathore, appearing for the claimant-objector, on the other hand, has submitted that the accident had taken place near the tri-junction of Mani Majra where three main roads join each other. Respondent No. 2 was driving his vehicle towards this crossing on dual carriage road. As is evident from the photographs Exhibits P. 3, P. 4 and P. 5, the deceased had already almost crossed the road and had reached near the divider of the dual carriage road. It was, therefore, for respondent No. 2 not only to slow down his vehicle but to apply brakes to avert the accident. In fact, the deceased having entered the main road and having crossed its centre could neither retrace nor speed-up his cycle to match the fast approaching vehicle.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel. The photographs leave no doubt that the deceased had been hit by the vehicle driven by respondent No. 2, when he had almost crossed the road and was reaching the divider of the dual-carriage road. M/s Hoshiarpur National Transporters Pvt Ltd. and Janak Rani's cases (supra) have no application to the situation as obtaining in the case in hand. In none of the two above referred cases the vehicle was approaching the crossing of three main roads, as is the position in the present case. The Manimajra-Chandigarh-Shimla Crossing is a crowded one. All types of miscellaneous traffic cross it including heavy and light vehicles, carts, cycles and even pedestriants. It was, therefore, the duty of respondent No. 2 to slow down the vehicle and when the deceased had not only entered the road but was in the process of crossing it, he should have applied brakes to the vehicle to avert the accident but this he did not do. Rule 6 of the 10th Schedule of the Act enjoins upon the driver of a motor vehicle to slow down when approaching a road intersection and not to enter it until he is aware that he can do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon. The finding of the Tribunal that the facts and circumstances of the present case do not suggest that respondent No. 2 slowed down the vehicle before entering into the crossing or that he made sure that he could do so with due regard to the safety of the persons already on the crossing, is unexceptionable. I find that the deceased was in no way negligent when he plying the cycle tried to go across the road near the crossing, particularly when he had virtually reached near the divider of the dual carriaee road. The accident is, therefore, solely attributable to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 2. There was no negligence whatsoever on the part of the deceased. I, therefore, do not agree with the finding of the Tribunal that it is a case of contributory negligence. One third deduction made in the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal, therefore, can not be sustained.;