KISHAN LAL Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Anju Sharma aged about 23 years, an unmarried daughter of the appellants was hit by a Matador No. HIA-7171 near CTU Twin Transport Area, Sector 26, Chandigarh. She sustained multiple injuries in the said accident and ultimately died on the way to the hospital. In a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act filed by her parents, the present appellants, seeking compensation for her death, Claims Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that respondent Pritam Singh, the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident to the extent of 3/4th and the deceased was negligent to the extent of 1/4th. Claims Tribunal further came to the conclusion that the deceased at the time of the accident was earning a sum of Rs. 900/- per month. Claims Tribunal deducted 1/3rd therefrom towards her personal expenses and assessed the dependency of the appellants at Rs. 600/- per month. Claims Tribunal chose a multiplier of 5 for computing the compensation, which would come to Rs. 36,000/-. But since the deceased was also held to be negligent to the extent of 1/4th, Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 27,000/- being 3/4th of the total amount of Rs. 36,000/-, with interest by its award dated 25.11.1994. Hence this appeal at the instance of the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no basis to hold that the deceased was also negligent to the extent of 1/4th, and thus the finding of the Claims Tribunal in that behalf deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel also submitted that Claims Tribunal has not allowed any amount for loss of consortium and on account of funeral expenses. Learned counsel lastly submitted that in any case, the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded a higher amount of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(3.) On an examination of the award, I find that the accident in this case was admitted. It was also not disputed that the deceased was hit by the Matador owned by respondent Sant Kumar and driven by respondent Pritam Singh. The Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence produced on record came to the conclusion that there was no zebra crossing at the site and the deceased had almost crossed the road. He, however, came to the conclusion that the deceased having attempted to cross the road without a zebra crossing meant for the pedestrians, she was negligent to the extent of 1/4th in causing the accident. On a consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal erred in holding the deceased also negligent in causing the accident. It is apparent from the evidence that it was a double road with a divider and there was not a big distance to be covered by the deceased to reach the divider of the road and then to cross the other part of the road. Once that was so, the driver of the offending vehicle should have been more cautious in driving the vehicle and if he had done so, the accident could have been avoided. I thus set aside the finding of the Claims Tribunal in that behalf and hold that the accident had taken place only due to the negligence of respondent Pritam Singh alone in driving the vehicle. This is particularly so in the wake of the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did not enter the witness box to explain his stand taken in the written statement.