SHANTI DEVI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER PUNJAB ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Bhim Sen Sharma, a School teacher, aged about 43 years, was going on a cycle when he was knocked down and killed by Punjab Roadways Bus No. PNE - 8388 at about 3-45 P. M. on 22nd of January 1962 on the Grand Trunk Road near village Padhana. His widow Smt. Shanti Devi filed a claim for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab, has awarded her a sum of Rs. 3,000/- only as compensation. A sum of Rs. 8,520/- which was found payable to her four minor children from her wedlock with the decease, has been withheld from her on the ground that Smt. Shanti Devi had not joined her children as applicants. It may be mentioned here that the eldest of these minors was a girl aged about 10 years. Smt. Shanti Devi naturally feels aggrieved and has come up in appeal. According to her, the income of the deceased and the amount of compensation due to the dependants had been meagrely assessed and the learned Tribunal has added insult to injury by withholding the amount due to the minors. I am inclined to agree with her on both these points.

(2.) THE finding of the learned Tribunal that the accent was due to the negligence of the driver of the Punjab Roadways bus has not been seriously challenged before me. The deceased was on a cycle, but he was going on his left side of the road when he was knocked down by the bus. He was removed to the hospital where he died the same day. He had injuries all over his body and 7 ribs had been broken and the right lung was found to be ruptured. Dr. Hari Ram, a private medical practitioner, and Ram Krishen, a landlord, had witnessed the accident. According to both these witnesses, the bus was going at a very fast speed. The deceased was thrown off from the cycle and fell at a distance of 10/12 feet and the bus driver lost control over the vehicle. The bus fill into kathans and the bus driver Shri Wazir Chand was challenged for rash and negligent driving under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. He has been convicted and sentenced by the Criminal Court though his negligence has been proved independently by evidence examined in this case.

(3.) IT is true that the appellant had not mentioned in her claim application that she had four minor children from her wedlock with the deceased. If on that ground the learned Tribunal was to ignore the existence of the children, then the amount due as compensation for the death of the deceased on account of loss of income to the dependants should have been paid in its entirety to the sole surviving heir and there was hardly any justification for withholding the major portion of that compensation amount. The mother was after all the natural and de factor guardian of the minor children and was charged with the duty of bringing them up. The learned Tribunal took at the a harsh and unrealistic view in making the helpless minors suffer for a small lapse on the part of the widow in distress or that of her legal adviser. It may be mentioned that in a notice served by the widow on the General Manager of the Punjab Roadways before the filling of the present petition, it had been mentioned that the deceased had left four minor children who were dependent on the deceased. This fact had again been mentioned by the widow in her statement made before the learned Tribunal in the course of the proceedings. The erroneous view taken by the learned Tribunal goes against a long string of rulings. In an unreported case Mst. Parsini v. Sohan Singh, (Letters Patent Appeal No. 273 of 1963, D/- 26-4-1967 (Punj) ), by Mehar Singh, C. J. , and Harbans Singh, J.) the same question had arisen on almost similar facts. In the claim application filed on the prescribed form, it had not been mentioned that the deceased had left seven minor children besides the widow. The prescribed form has no separate column requiring that the names of all the dependents of the deceased may be mentioned therein. The column in the application with the heading "relationship of the applicant with the deceased" may seem to lay a trap in which the widow had fallen in that case as well as in the case now before me. The Answer "wife of the deceased" cannot be equalled in its simplicity and innocence and naturally does not mention that there were minor children also. In that case also, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal denied the minors the share that would have been payable to them out of the compensation amount because of a venial and excusable omission of their mother. It was observed that the Tribunal had taken rather a narrow view in holding that the application could be treated only as on behalf of the wife and not on behalf of the children. The view taken was that the application had been made by the widow not only for herself but also on behalf of the children as it had been indicated in an earlier application that the deceased had left some minor children and that those minors had been produced in Court. It was further observed that the minor children could not have themselves filed and claim and that the delay, if any, in pressing their claim should be condoned.