S.P. Goyal, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of two cross -appeals (F.A.O. Nos. 4 and 33 of 1975) filed against the same judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as the Claims Tribunal) dated July 31, 1974 where by the claims filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, namely, the widow, son and daughter, were allowed in the amount of Rs. 1,04,800/ -.
(2.) MESSRS Hoshiarpur National Transporters Ltd., have filed F.A.O. No. 4 of 1975 for setting aside the said judgment whereas the legal representatives have filed the other appeal (F.A O. No. 33 of 1975) for enhancement of the compensation to rupees five lacs. The accident which resulted in the death of Dharam Singh, the husband of Maya Devi and father of the two other claimants, took place on July 15, 1969 at 12.15 p.m. on the Jullundur?Pathankot road near the Power House where the bye -pass of Tanda Urmar joins the said road. The deceased was coming from Jammu and proceeding towards Rohtak in his own car. While he was approaching the part of the road where the bye -pass of Tanda Urmar joins the main toad, bus No. PNH -3326 driven by Natha Singh and belonging to Messrs Hoshiarpur National Transporters entered from the bye -pass on the main road. When it took turn to its right, the left bumper of the car struck the right side of the bus near the driver seat. The legal representatives filed the claim alleging that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus by Natha Singh, driver. The claim was opposed by the Respondents, namely, the company owning the bus, the driver and the insurance company who all controverted the allegations made in the claim petition and averred that the accident was caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased. The Claims Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties, accepted the claim and granted an award in the amount of 1,04,800/ - which led to the filing of these two appeals as noticed above.
(3.) THERE is no dispute that the accident took place as narrated above. The learned Counsel for the Appellant -company also could not dispute that the driver of the bus was negligent in as much as he violated the provisions of Regulation 6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the 'Schedule') while entering upon Jullundur -Pathankot G. T. Road which no doubt was the main road. Regulation 6 of the Schedule provides that the driver of motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection, road junction or road corner and shall not enter upon any such intersection or junction until he becomes aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of the person thereon. The bus driver, therefore, was duty -bond to stop before entering the road junction and wait till the traffic on the main road was clear and he could enter the main road without endangering the safety of any person thereon . No fault, therefore, can be found with the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the accident took place because of the negligence of the bus driver. However, the learned Counsel for the Appellant -company contended that the driver of the car was equally negligent and responsible in causing the accident. The argument raised was that the driver of the car was also duty bound to slow down while approaching the road junction and by not doing so, he also violated the provisions of Regulation 6 of the Schedule and was, therefore, guilty of negligent driving. Reliance for this contention was placed on the statement of Karam Singh, A. W. 5, who deposed that the car was running at a speed of 60 kilometers per hour when the accident took place. Even if this statement be accepted at its face -value, it cannot be said that the speed of 60 kilometer per hour on the main road was such a high speed which could warrant a finding that the deceased had not slowed down the speed of his car prior to its collision with the bus. That apart, from a close reading of the provisions of Regulation 6 of the Schedule, I am of the view that no duty is cast on the driver running on the main road to slow down his vehicle. On the other hand, a duty is cast on the driver of the motor vehicle who approaches the road intersection or road junction to slow down while entering the same. In case of road junction, the driver of the motor vehicle running on the main road would not be approaching the junction at any point unless he takes a turn and enters the side road. The word, 'junction' according to the dictionary meaning means a place or point of union, which in case of the T -junction would only be where the side road joins the main road. It is, therefore, obvious that it is only the driver of the vehicle running on the side road who would be approaching the junction while entering upon the main road. Consequently, the driver of the car could not be held guilty of negligent driving for violating the provisions of Regulation 6 of the Schedule even if it may be held that he had not slowed down the speed of his car while approaching the T -Junction.;