M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, at the instance of the dissatisfied claimants due to the inadequacy of the sum awarded. On the other hand, there are Cross -Objections No. 11 -CII of the owner of the offending car to absolve them of the liability altogether. The insurance company, though a Respondent in these two matters, has chosen to remain non -aggressive.
(2.) THE accident, which is the subject matter of this claim, occurred on an intersection of equi -dimensional roads in Sector 35 -A, Chandigarh at about 6.30 p.m. on June 10, 1979. The deceased Jatinder Singh lived in a house close -by to the scene of the accident and had while riding his motor cycle CHG 21 come out of his house to proceed on the straight road. At the intersection, however, Ambassador car No. CH 8025 came out from his left side, struck against him almost in the middle, whereby the deceased by the impact was thrown off and fell on the corner of the intersection near an electric pole. The motor cycle, however, was pushed forward by momentum of the car and became stationary touching the car near the pavement when the car was almost 3/4th on the pavement across the intersection in the direction in which it was proceeding. At the point where the car ultimately stood the distance was about 50 feet. Jagjit Singh PW 7, Harbant Kaur PW 8 and Mehma Singh PW 9 are said to have witnessed the occurrence. Harbant Kaur PW 8 was the sister of the deceased and according to her she removed the deceased to the hospital. Beforehand the occupants of the car, being its driver and suggestedly two other men and two ladies leaving the car there, vanished from the scene. The car was found to be owned by Messrs Bagarian Shoes Limited, one of whose Directors is Ashok Singh Respondent and it undeniably was comprehensively insured with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited Respondent. The liability, if any, undeniably is thus on the insurance company. In due course the matter was reported to the police, but somehow it never went before the criminal court as the police took the view that Ashok Singh at the time of the accident was not driving the car and who else was the driver was not known. The claimants being the parents of the deceased, however, moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,00,000/ -. The Tribunal went into the controversy. The plea of the owners was that it was Kishori Lai, their driver, who was driving the car at the time of the accident. It is for this reason that the comprehensive issue was framed by the Tribunal to the effect Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of car No. CH 8025 by Ashok Singh or Kishori Lal or due to rash and negligent driving of the motor -cyclist, resulting in causing the death of Jatinder Singh and to what effect? The second issue obviously was To what compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled and from which of the Respondents? The Tribunal expressed the view that it was car No. CH 8025 which had caused the accident and that it was not driven by Ashok Singh but by Kishori Lal. It further took the view that the accident took place due to the negligence of both the vehicles and defining contribution inter se it put the offending car to be negligent to the extent of 70 per cent and that of the offending motor cycle at 30 per cent. On the question of quantum, the Tribunal found that the deceased, an unmarried youngman of 25, was drawing a sum of Rs. 1,047.50 per mensem as SDO (Irrigation). The deceased was an Engineering Graduate having topped in the list of selectees by the Public Service Commission in the year 1977. The Tribunal calculated the dependency of the parents at the rate of Rs. 5,000/ - per annum and the damage to the motor cycle at Rs. 3,000/ -. A multiplier of 10 was given and thus computing the total loss at Rs. 63,000/ - an award was passed in terms of 70 per cent thereof, to the tune of Rs. 44,100/ - on which interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum was allowed from the date of the filing of the claim application till realisation. As indicated earlier, the parents of the deceased clamour for more and the car owners' effort is to deprive them of even what has been awarded.
(3.) IT is significant to note that the finding of the Tribunal that car No. CH 8025 was the offending vehicle has not been disputed. It has also not been disputed that it was owned by the owner -Respondents and their liability is to be taken care of by the insurance company. It is, even obvious otherwise, for the offending vehicle was found standing after the accident by the investigating police. There are on record photographs obtained at that time being exhibits P -l to P -7, which speak for themselves, invoking the principle of res ipsa loquitur. Additionally there is site plan Exh. P -l2 supported by oral evidence in that regard. It is plain from the site plan Exh. P -12 and photographs that the impact between the two vehicles was in the middle of the intersection for there was no roundabout constructed in it or even manned otherwise. The pool of blood at that place established the impact point. From that impact point, the deceased was found thrown at a tangent in a corner of the intersection near an electric pole on the road pavement. The car was found parked 3/4th on the road pavement and approximately 1/4th on the road in the direction in which it was headed at a distance of about 50 feet from the place of impact. The motor cycle was lying in front of it in close contact with the car, entangled with the right front tyre and causing a uniform dent on practically whole of the front of the car. These facts since they speak for themselves, disclose that the motorcyclist had almost come in front of the car, if not wholly in front of it, when the accident took place.;