K. Gopalakrishnan v. Sankara Narayanan And Others

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Sadasivam, J.:— On the morning of 16-12-1963 at about 9-15 A.M there was an accident at the junction of St. Mary Road and C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road, Madras in which the lorry MSY 3463 owned by T.U.C.S Ltd., and driven by one Sankara Narayanan (R.W 1.) and the Scooter MSY 4456 owned and driven by M.K Subramanian (R.W 2) were involved. One K. Gopalakrishanan (P.W 10) son of Krishnan (P.W 11) who was travelling on the pillion of the scooter at the time of the accident sustained a lacerated injury on his left leg 10″×5½″ with fracture of both bones as the right rear wheel of the lorry ran over his left leg, after he fell down as a result of both the vehicles colliding on their sides and this finally resulted in the amputation of his left leg above the knee. The pillion rider Gopalakrishnan claimed Rs. 3,60,210 as compensation in O.P No. 60 of 1964 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) impleading R.W 1 Shankaranarayanan, the driver of the lorry of T.U.C.S Ltd. the owner of the lorry, the Co-operative Fire General Insurance Society Ltd. with whom the lorry was insured. R.W 2 M.K Subramanian, the driver and owner of the scooter one A.K Anand, the original owner of the scooter and the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, the insurer of the scooter as respondents 1 to 6 respectively. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rupees 57,865.37 P and cost of Rs. 100 to the claimant Gopalakrishnan only as against R.W 2 M.K Subramanian, the driver of the scooter. The pillion rider Gopalakrishnan has preferred C.M.A No. 358 of 1964 on the ground that he should have been awarded compensation as claimed by him against all the parties. R.W 2 M.K Subramanian, the driver of scooter has preferred C.M.A No. 398 of 1964 against the award made against him. It is convenient to refer to the array of parties as described in O.P No. 60 of 1964 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal.

2. The sketch Ex. P-1 prepared by P.W 7 Vadivelu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation, who went to the spot at 10-00 A.M on the date of the accident is useful to understand the evidence in this case. According to the driver of the lorry the sketch is incorrect. P.W 7 deposed that the driver of the scooter as well as the driver of the lorry showed him the same place, as marked in the sketch as the point of impact of the two vehicles. But the driver of the lorry stated that he did not show to the police the place where his lorry came into contact with the scooter. It is difficult to accept his statement as against that of the Sub-Inspector of Police. It is not possible to accept the evidence of the lorry driver that, when he returned to the scene of occurrence, after going to the Police Station, the lorry had been pushed forward.

3. The lorry was laden with 40 bags of sugar and 13 bags of wheat and it was proceeding from east to west along St. Mary's Road at the time of the occurrence. The driver of the lorry deposed that he drove the vehicle at a speed of 15 to 30 kilometers which would work out approximately to 9 to 18 miles per hour. P.W 8 Arulraj, one of the witnesses to the occurrence deposed that the lorry came at a great speed. But the evidence of the Sub-Inspector shows that the lorry had travelled 25 feet after the place of impact as pointed out to him by the driver of the lorry as well as the driver of the scooter and the blood-mark noticed by him. Rule 307 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules required the efficiency of the brakes of the motor vehicles to be such that when laden it should stop on application of brakes within a distance of 45 feet when travelling at 20 miles per hour and within 25 feet if travelling at 15 miles per hour. Thus, if the lorry had the required efficiency, which could normally be presumed, as the lorry driver would otherwise have been prosecuted for driving the vehicle with inefficient brakes, the speed of the lorry at the time of the accident could have been only about 15 miles per hour. If the lorry had very efficient brakes it could have proceeded at some higher speed. The scooter driven by R.W 2 was proceeding from north to south along C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road at the time of the accident. The pillion rider P.W 10 Gopalakrishnan deposed that the fourth respondent drove the scooter at 10 to 15 miles per hour. P.W 9 Venkataramani one of the witnesses to the occurrence, stated that the scooter driver slowed down the vehicle on approaching the junction of the roads. R.W 2, M.K Subramanian, the driver of the scooter, went to the extent of stating that he went in the first gear for about two furlongs from his house to the place of accident as there were lots of pot holes and the road was under repair and there were 3 or 4 intersections to be crossed. But in the criminal Court he has stated that in C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road he picked up speed and was going at 25 miles per hour and that on approaching the junction of the roads, where the accident took place, he reduced the speed to 10 to 15 miles and came to first gear. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of the scooter driver that he proceeded in the first gear. But even the driver of the lorry did not state that the scooter was driven rashly. It is quite possible that the driver of the scooter drove the vehicle at 25 miles per hour before coming to the junction of the roads. But there is evidence to show that he slowed down the vehicle at the junction and he could not therefore, have driven the vehicle at a speed of more than 15 miles or 15 to 20 miles per hour. It could not be said that either the lorry or the scooter was driven rashly.

4. The main question for consideration in this case is whether the driver of the lorry or the driver of the scooter or both were negligent in causing the accident. It is not the case of any of the parties that the collision of the vehicles in this case was an accident or a misfortune, for which no one could be blamed on the ground that the drivers of the vehicles were engaged in doing a lawful act in a lawful manner, by lawful means and with proper care and caution. It is not disputed that the collision of the vehicles was due to negligence. But the driver of each of the two vehicles throws the entire blame on the other. The case of the claimant is that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent, though his contention is that the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry really caused the collision and that he was primarily responsible for the grievous injury sustained by him which resulted in the amputation of the left leg above the knee. The Tribunal found the driver of the scooter alone to be negligent in this case on the basis of several findings of fact given by it, but some of the findings of fact can hardly be supported.

5. Section 78 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires that every driver of a motor vehicle shall drive the vehicle in conformity with any indication given by a mandatory traffic sign and in conformity with the driving regulations set forth in the Tenth Schedule. Regulations 6 and 7 among the driving regulations contained in the Tenth Schedule, are relevant for the purpose of this case and they are as follows:

“6. The driver of a motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection; a road junction or a road corner and shall not enter any such intersection or junction until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon.

7. The driver of a motor vehicle shall on entering a road intersection, if the road entered is a main road and designated as such, give way to the vehicles proceeding along that road and in any other case give way to all traffic approaching the intersection on his right hand.”

6. It is clear from the evidence of P.W 7 Vadivelu, Sub-Inspector of Police Traffic Investigation, that neither C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road nor St. Mary's Road has been designated as a main road. It is on account of this fact P.W 7 stated that under regulation 7 of the Tenth Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the driver of the lorry should have given the right of way to the driver of the scooter, which came on his right at the junction of the roads. In chief-examination, the driver of the lorry R.W 1 Sankaranarayanan stated that there are sign boards in Ramaswami Iyer Road, and St. Mary's Road with the words “stop, listen and go”. In cross-examination he stated that there is no sign board in St. Mary's Road. The evidence of R.W 2 Subramanian, the driver of the scooter, is that there was no sign board in Ramaswami Iyer Road at the time of the accident, or prior to it, and that he saw the board for the first time in March 1964. Though he deposed before the Tribunal that he did tell in the criminal Court that he stopped the scooter before entering the intersection, he did not make any such statement in the criminal Court. But on the other hand he stated in the criminal Court that he did not stop the vehicle before entering the intersection. He stated in the criminal Court that on approaching the intersection, he reduced the speed to 10 or 15 miles per hour and came to first gear. If we find that there was a sign board with the words “stop, listen and go” in C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road, there can be no doubt that the driver of the scooter disregarded the same in not stopping before entering the junction of the roads. The evidence of P.W 10 Gopalakrishnan, the claimant, is also to the effect that there was no board on the eastern side of C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road, with the words “stop, listen and go”. P.W 9 Venkataramani is an Advocate, and he is one of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. He did not observe any board with the words “stop, listen and go”. But he could not say if there was such a board. But there is the positive evidence of P.W 7 Vadivelu, who went to the spot within an hour of the accident that there is no sign board, “stop, listen and go” in C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road near the intersection of the roads. If there was any such board, it is extremely unlikely that he would have failed to mark it in the sketch Ex. P-1 prepared by him. There is absolutely no reason to doubt his evidence. But the Tribunal relied mainly on the evidence of R.W 3 Shanmugasundaram, Reserve Sub-Inspector, Royapettah Traffic Station, and the register, Ex. R-5 produced by him, to find that there was such a sign board. According to the Register Ex. R-5 such a sign board was erected in C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road near the junction on 17th March, 1960. But R.W 3 does not know personally about the erection of the sign board at that place, as he is in Royapettah Police Station only from November, 1963. It is not possible to accept the suggestion made to the witness that he has fabricated the register to oblige the second respondent. At page 130 of the register, the following dates are mentioned, evidently as dates of inspection and they contain initials: 12-12-1963, 8-1-1964, 18-2-1964, 20-3-1964, 12-4-1964, 10-5-1964, 14-6-1964, 16-7-1964 and 11-8-1964. In his chief-examination R.W 3 did not state that he ever checked the sign boards. He was not cross-examined by the respondents 1 and 3. When he was cross-examined by the fourth respondent, he stated that he is in Royapettah Police Station from November, 1963, that he has not checked the boards and that he has not signed the register. But when he was cross-examined by the claimant, he stated that once a month he checked the boards and that after joining Royapettah Station he had been checking the boards. But he admitted that he could not say if the board was there on the date of the accident. He also admitted that during road repairs the boards may be removed. In re-examination he has stated that he has initialled the register on the dates of his inspection. But he has not stated that the initials in the register are his initials. The Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the evidence of R.W 3. The positive evidence of P.W 7 that there was no such sign board when he went to the spot within an hour of the accident has certainly to be preferred to any presumption that can be made on the strength of the dates and initials in Ex. R-5 that the sign board should have been in existence at the time of the accident as it was in existence on 12-12-1963 and 8-1-1964. It is needless to repeat that R.W 3 did not even state that he inspected the sign boards on those dates. It should further be noted that the triangular sign board with red border containing the words “stop, listen and then proceed” was ordered to be deleted from the additional traffic signs in the Motor Vehicles Act by G.O.Ms 1221, Home, dated 26th March, 1962, and the sign board containing the words “Halt and go” was added by the very same government order. Hence on the date of the accident, 16-12-1963, the sign board containing the words “stop, listen and then proceed” could not have been in existence, and if at all there was a sign board, it would have been “Halt and Go”. But it is not the evidence of any one that there was a sign board with the words “Halt and Go” on the date of the accident. Thus, we have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of the Traffic Investigation Sub-Inspector, P.W 7 Vadivelu, that there was no sign board with the words “stop, listen and go” in C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road on the date of the accident, and this corroborates the evidence of the claimant and the driver of the scooter.

7. The Tribunal held that the lorry entered the intersection first and then only the scooter entered it and that the scooter hit the lorry at its rear wheel and not in the front portion. The evidence of the claimant, who was then studying in the First Year B. Pharmacy in the Madras Medical College, is that he wanted to go to Mohana Vilas for combined study with his friend Lakshminarayanan, as he had selection examination at 10.15 a.m, on that day, that the driver of the scooter, who is his neighbour and friend, offered to give him a lift up to the bus stop just to the west of the southwest corner of the junction of the roads, and that he accepted the offer and went on the scooter. In cross-examination he stated that he wanted to spend twenty minutes for combined study after going to Mohana Vilas on cycle, but changed his mind to go by bus direct to the College, when the fourth respondent offered to take him in his scooter. The fourth respondent who is a third year student in the Engineering College, stated that at about 8.45 a.m the claimant, who is his friend, spoke to him across the terrace that he wanted to see his friend Ramji studying in the Engineering College and that he took him on his scooter. The evidence of the claimant is more probable, as it is unlikely that he would have thought of going to see Ramji of Engineering College when he had selection examination at 10.15 a.m on that day in the Medical College.

8. If the scooter driver wanted to go to Engineering College, he would have had to proceed straight along C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road and should have crossed St. Mary's Road. But even if he wanted to drop the claimant at the bus stand to the west of the southwestern corner of the junction of the roads, he should have crossed at least the middle of the intersection of the roads while turning to the right as required by Regulation 9 of the Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act unless he disregarded the Regulation. The evidence of the claimant is that when the driver of the scooter turned to right, the lorry came by in a flash without sounding the horn and dashed against the scooter and hit him also and that he fell down and the lorry's right rear wheel ran over his left leg. He did not see the lorry before the scooter entered the intersection. According to him the scooter had turned seventy five per cent when the impact occurred. He denied the suggestion that the lorry was there before the scooter entered the intersection. When he was cross-examined by the second respondent, he stated that the right front-side of the lorry hit his left leg. The above statement of the claimant that the scooter turned to right and in a flash the lorry came without sounding the horn and dashed against the scooter would indicate that the driver of the scooter did not heed the driving Regulation 9(b)(1) of the Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The driver of the scooter stated that on coming to the intersection of the St. Mary's Road, he looked in the front, left and right and could find no vehicle and that he sounded his horn when he went 3 or 4 feet in the intersection and then saw a lorry coming east to west. According to him the lorry was 15 to 20 feet away to his left, when he was 4 or 5 feet in St. Mary's Road, that he first thought of crossing, then decided to stop and so applied the brakes but as he could not still avoid the lorry, he turned right. He stated that the scooter would go 2 or 3 feet after the application of the brakes while going at ten miles speed. He decided to stop when he was 8 or 9 feet in St. Mary's Road, which according to him, is 29 feet broad. P.W 7, the Sub-Inspector of Police, has mentioned the width of St. Mary's Road as 27 feet and that of C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road as 29 feet, though in the sketch Ex. P-1 he has given the width of St. Mary's Road as 25 feet to the east of the junction of the roads. According to the driver of the scooter, he turned right when the lorry was 4 or 5 feet away from him. He stated that he cannot turn the scooter at right angle and will have to take a curve. If the driver of the scooter had taken all the precautions mentioned by him, it is extremely unlikely that the accident would have occurred. If he was going only at a slow speed, he could have stopped the scooter when he saw the lorry 4 or 5 feet away from him. The driver of the scooter stated that if he had jammed the brakes, the pillion-rider would have fallen down and hence he did not do so. This would have happened only if he was going at a high speed. We have already referred to his statement in the criminal Court that he travelled at 25 miles per hour and slowed down the speed to 10 to 15 miles on approaching the intersection of the roads and that he did not stop the vehicle before entering the intersection, if he had stopped the scooter on approaching the intersection and looked out for vehicles on either side, he would certainly have seen the lorry coming on the left and he could have easily stopped the scooter by applying the brakes. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the Tribunal that if the scooter hit the lorry on the right rear wheel, it will show that the lorry had entered the intersection first. After all the length of the lorry is only 16 feet and the distance between the front and the rear wheels is very much less. Even if the vehicles had travelled at 15 miles per hour, each vehicle would have covered 22 feet per second. It should be noted that the damage to the scooter was all on the left side and it had fallen on the left side. The left front shield of the scooter was dented. The left side foot-board was dented and the left side engine cover was dented and pressed inside. On the right side of the scooter, the foot rest alone was damaged. The damage to the lorry was on the right side. The front portion of the right side rear mud-guard was dented. This would show that the said portion of the lorry would have come into contact with some portion of the left side of the scooter so as to throw off the scooter. The left leg of the claimant would not have been run over completely by the rear right wheel of the lorry as it would then have been completely crushed as the lorry was heavily loaded. The big lacerated injury on the left leg of the claimant with fracture of the bones could have been caused either by the leg being caught in between the scooter and the rear right side of the lorry at the time of impact, or by reason of the lesser pressure exerted by the outer right tyre of the rear wheel of the lorry, as it is quite possible that the inner tyre of the right wheel of the lorry alone had a grip on the road. It is really unnecessary to speculate as to which part of the lorry caused the lacerated injury on the left leg of the claimant. It is true that P.W 7 did not notice any blood mark on the lorry. But it is quite possible that as the lorry moved away to a distance of 24 feet and the bleeding from the injury should have commenced a second or less interval of time though immediately after the injury was sustained no blood fell on any part of the lorry.

9. R.W 1 Sankaranarayanan, the driver of the lorry, deposed that he came to the junction of the roads first, that he could see 20 feet on the right and that as far as he could see, he saw no scooter. He stated that as the trees and compound walls of the houses obstructed his vision, he could not see anything on his right in C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road till he entered the intersection and that when he entered 5 feet of the intersection, he had visibility of the whole road. But he stated that he looked to the right till the sign board in C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road and not any further. He stated that he did not tell the Sub-Inspector about the point of impact and that the sketch drawn by the Sub-Inspector is incorrect. It is impossible to place any reliance on the evidence of the lorry driver. It is difficult to imagine how he was able to see only up to the sign board in C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road, and not any further, in spite of his entering the junction of the roads, to a distance of five feet from where the whole of C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road will be visible, even according to him. If really the scooter was at a considerable distance from the junction of the roads, the accident would not have occurred. The reasoning of the Tribunal, in paragraph 14 of its judgment proceeds on the erroneous assumption that the scooter was no way near the junction of the roads when the lorry entered the junction. The Tribunal has observed that the words “approaching the intersection on his right hand” in Rule 6 of the driving regulations found in the Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act ‘should be held to indicate only those vehicles which approach the said intersection from the right hand from a reasonable distance so that the other driver must wait for a reasonable time and allow that vehicle to pass’ and that “to hold otherwise will be that a vehicle not approaching the intersection from the right will have to indefinitely wait” and “this could not have been contemplated by the rule”. The fallacy of the reasoning of the Tribunal consists in its assuming without really any basis on the evidence, that the scooter was at a considerable distance when the lorry came to the intersection of the roads. The Tribunal relied on the evidence of P.W 8 Amulraj, one of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence that the lorry had come into the square in the plan, but not the scooter, as supporting its conclusion. P.W 8 was then coming from Mowbray's Road, through St. Marry's Road and lie was proceeding eastwards, when the lorry came in the opposite direction at a distance of 40 feet, and he also noticed the scooter coming from Ramaswami Iyer Road. He stated that when the scooter was turning, the lorry's side hit the scooter and the scooter turned towards him. He was asked to show the position of the lorry and that of the scooter and he marked the point A in the sketch Ex. P-1 as the position of the lorry, and the point B as the position of the scooter. This would clearly show that the square mentioned by him is really the square formed by the straight lines drawn in the sketch to show the width of the roads. The position of the lorry marked A would be just outside the square formed by the continuation of the sides of the two intersecting roads. At best, the evidence of P.W 8 would only show that the lorry was a few feet nearer to the mid-point of the intersecting roads than the scooter.

10. P.W 9 Venkataramani is an Advocate and he was proceeding towards north along C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road. It is true that as he was coming from the southern side of Ramaswami Iyer Road, the lorry obstructed his view of the scooter at the time of impact. But the Tribunal erred in observing on this ground that his evidence is not material to show the exact part of the lorry where the scooter hit it. It is clear from his evidence that when he saw the lorry and-the scooter, they were about to enter the intersection of the roads. He saw the lorry coming on the eastern side of St. Mary's Road and going west at a fairly heavy speed without slowing down or sounding the horn. He also saw the scooter coming south and slowing down and taking a sharp turn towards west. If this evidence is accepted, it would belie the version of the lorry driver and it would clearly support the other evidence as to how the vehicles collided on their sides.

11. We have already referred to the evidence of the lorry driver that he did not show the place of impact to the police and that the lorry stopped within a distance of ten feet after the impact. The lorry driver stated that he never swerved to the left. There can be no doubt that all these statements are false. The evidence of P.W 7 Vadivelu is that the drivers of both the vehicles showed him the same spot marked in the sketch Ex. P-1 as the place of impact of the vehicles. This is corroborated by one or two facts observed by him. He found tyre marks from the place where the scooter was standing up to the place where the lorry stood and this was evidently due to the application of the brake, as he did not find such marks on the eastern side of St. Mary's Road. It is not clear from his evidence whether what he noticed was a skid mark or tyre mark, as he speaks to the existence of tyre marks from the place where the scooter was standing to the place where the lorry stood in his chief-examination, but has stated in cross-examination that he did not find skid marks on the eastern side of St. Marry's Road. Further he found blood marks at the place of impact. It is clear from what we have stated that the scooter and the lorry should have travelled at a speed of about 15 to 20 miles per hour. Even if the vehicles had travelled at 15 miles per hour, each vehicle would have covered 22 feet per second. Hence even if the lorry and the scooter were at the points A and B as spoken to by P.W 8, or were approaching the intersection of the roads, it would not have taken more than a couple of seconds thereafter for the vehicles to have collided on their sides. Hence the assumption of the Tribunal that the scooter was at a considerable distance and that the driver of the lorry need not indefinitely wait to allow the scooter to pass is totally unjustified. There can be no doubt that both the vehicles entered the intersection without regard to the other vehicles on the road, that they were close together, that each swerved to avoid collision but that in spite of it the sides of the vehicles collided. In London Passenger Transport Board v. Upson . 1949 1 All E.R 60.. Lord Porter in dealing with the duty of a driver of a vehicle approaching a crossing has observed at p. 65 that:

“the true position is that the motorist must be able to see whether the crossing is clear or not up to the time when, going at the speed he is going, provided it is a reasonable speed, he would still be able to stop before reaching the crossing”

12. Clearly the driver of the lorry in this case has failed in such duty. It was not after the impact that he applied the brake for his lorry travelled 24 feet before it came to stop. Hence he could not have stopped before reaching the crossing after he reached the point where he would have been in a position to see the scooter coming on the right.

13. The evidence of the witnesses is no doubt not clear as to which part of the scooter and the lorry collided. But this is inevitable having regard to the fact that the accident took place within a couple of seconds after the vehicles approached the intersection of the roads. But the driver of the lorry has clearly violated both the driving Regulations 6 and 7 of the Tenth Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. He ought to have given right of way to the driver of the scooter, who had also approached the intersection of the roads on his right, and the mere fact that the lorry was one or two feet nearer the mid-point of the intersection of the roads than the scooter is not a sufficient ground for the driver of the lorry to disobey Regulation 7.

14. The learned Advocate for the owner of the lorry contended that as the lorry had travelled nearly up to half the junction of the roads it is the driver of the scooter alone that could be blamed for the collision. The fact that the lorry had traversed nearly half the junction of the roads at the time of impact is not sufficient in the circumstances of the case to show that the driver of the lorry was not negligent. We have already pointed out that neither of the drivers of the vehicles had a look out for other vehicles on the road as required under Regulation 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is clear from the evidence of the driver of the scooter that the collision took place on the northern half of St. Mary's Road, and this is corroborated by our finding as to the place of impact of the lorry and the scooter. Thus the driver of the lorry did not keep to the left side of the road as required by the first driving regulation of the Tenth Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. If he had kept to the left side of the road, the accident in this case would most certainly have been averted as he would have had a clear vision of the scooter coming on the right and would also have had ample time to give right of way to it even after seeing it. The explanation of the driver of the lorry that his view of Ramaswami Iyer Road was obstructed till he entered the intersection on account of the existence of trees and compound wall of houses to a height of six feet with hedges three feet over it is really no excuse for not obeying Regulation 7 of the Tenth Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. If the view of the lorry driver as regards the vehicles approaching on his right from C.P Ramaswami Iyer Road was really obstructed as stated by him, it was all the more incumbent on him to have reduced the speed and driven cautiously. There can be no doubt in this case that the driver of the lorry was negligent in not keeping to the left side of the road, in not having had a look out for vehicles coming on the right side, in not slowing down when approaching the intersection of the roads, in not sounding the horn when approaching the intersection and in not giving the right of way to the scooter which came on his right.

15. The learned advocate for the claimant laid considerable stress on the violations of the driving regulations contained in the Tenth Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act by the driver of the lorry. The following passage at page 32 of the “The Law of Running Down Cases” by Edward Terrell, clearly points out how far the infringement of a rule of the road could be relied upon to prove negligence.

“The mere infringement of a rule of the road is not necessarily proof of negligence on the part of the defendant. But under modern conditions of fast moving traffic any substantial infringement of the rules of driving would, it is submitted, be sufficient to justify the case being left to the jury. Under section 45(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 the Minister of Transport has prepared a High-way Code for the guidance of all persons using highways. This Code is set out in Schedule II. Under Sub-section (4) a failure on the part of any person to observe any provisions contained therein may be relied upon by a party to proceedings tending to establish or to negative any liability in question. The defences of contributory negligence or inevitable accident would still be open to the defendent, but once it was proved that he had broken one of the normal rules of the road, and that this may have been the cause of the accident, then the burden of proof would have been discharged by the plaintiff”

16. In Beven on Negligence, Volume I at page 685, the learned author has pointed out that the person riding or driving is not bound to keep his side; yet if he does not, he must keep a better look out to avoid collision than would be necessary, if he were on the proper part of the road. He has observed that the mere fact of a man driving on the wrong side of the road is, per se, no evidance of negligent driving in an action brought for running over a person who was crossing the road on foot. The following passage at page 686 of the same book clearly shows that the circumstances may warrant a deviation from the law of the road:

“In the crowded streets of a metropolis … situations and circumstances might frequently arise where a deviation from what is called the law of the road would not only be justifiable but absolutely necessary. In general the rule holds, and applies not merely to horses drawing carriages, but to saddle horses. Though there is one case not unambiguously reported, which seems to bear another construction, it is clear that the fact that a person driving on the wrong side of the road indicates carelessness, and hence prima facie points to negligence. Any other view would be destructive of the rule, for its conformity does not raise a presumption of right conduct, observance or disobedience of the rule becomes absolutely indifferent in the case of an action; as negligence having to be shown apart from the rule, the rule would be neutralized. If conformity to the rule is presumably going right, non-conformity would seem presumably to be not going right. This prima facie presumption is rebuttable”

17. In Joseph Eva Ltd. v. Reeves, Sir Wilfred Greene, M.R has observed that failure to observe a provision of the Highway Code does not in itself necessarily constitute negligence and that the effect to be given to such failure must necessarily depend upon the circumstances of the case. He has pointed out that where the traffic at cross roads is not regulated by a traffic light or the police, the regulation Never overtake at cross roads is an obvious canon of good driving, since overtaking at unregulated cross roads necessarily involves a risk to other traffic lawfully on the highway. The same principle would apply to several of the driving regulations contained in the Tenth Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. It is true that there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act corresponding to section 45(4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 of England which provides as follows:

“A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal and including proceedings for an offence under this Act) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or to negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings”.

18. But the infringement of the driving regulations may be relied upon by the claimant to show that the driver of the lorry omitted to do something which a reasonable driver guided by the driving regulations contained in the Tenth Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act would do and thar he was therefore negligent. The decision in Bailey v. Geddes, deals with the absolute statutory duty upon a motorist approaching a pedestrian crossing not to enter thereon unless he can see that there is no pedestrian upon the crossing. At page 675 it is pointed out that “it is impossible that what is done inside the crossing can be the fault or the negligence of the plaintiff himself because if the regulation had been obeyed there would have been no car upon the crossing at all which could, on any view, have injured the plaintiff”. It is further pointed out that once the vehicle is wrongly on that crossing, it does not lie in the mouth of the driver of that vehicle to say to the pedestrian ‘You have caused this accident by your negligence,’ because, if he had obeyed the regulation the driver never would have been on the crossing. It is observed in the same decision that each of these cases must depend upon a consideration of the particular language of the particular regulation.

19. There can be no doubt in this case that the driver of the lorry was negligent as pointed out at the end of the last but one paragraph. The Tribunal has found that the driver of the scooter was alone negligent and it was mainly on the ground that he disobeyed the traffic sign board ‘Stop listen and go’ and on the ground that it was the lorry that entered the intersection of the roads first, even when the scooter was at some distance. We have already found that there was no sign board and that the vehicles came to the junction of the roads almost simultaneously. It may be that the driver of the scooter was perhaps also negligent to some extent in having disregarded Regulation 6 of the driving regulations contained in the Tenth Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. There is at least some evidence of the scooter having slowed down, as it necessarily should have, to enable it to turn to the right, but there is none at all that the lorry driver mitigated his pace when approaching the junction. The learned Advocate for the driver of the scooter contended that there was no duty on the part of the driver of the scooter to see the vehicles coming to his left as such vehicles have to give him right of way. The fact that the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle on the wrong side of the road and did not even give him right of way will not justify the negligence of the driver of the scooter in not looking out for vehicles coming on the right and in going and dashing against it. We have pointed out that he could have stopped the scooter by applying the brakes as according to him he was going only at a slow speed and he could have stopped within three feet. It may be that if the driver of the scooter had sued the driver of the lorry for damages for negligence, the driver of the lorry could not effectively plead contributory negligence, as the effective cause for the collision was the negligence of the lorry driver. But so far as the claimant is concerned, he sustained a serious injury to his left leg on account of the collision of the two vehicles brought about by the combined effects of the negligence of both the driver of the lorry and the driver of the scooter, though the degree of such negligence, on the part of each varies considerably. Pollock's Law of Torts has dealt with it as a case of composite negligence. At page 361 of Pollock's Law of Torts by London, 15th edition, Pollock's treatment of the subject has been given without any revision. The following passage at page 361 is relevant to the present case:

“Another kind of question arises where a person is injured without any fault of his own, but by the combined effects of the negligence of two persons of whom the one is not responsible for the other. It has been supposed that A could avail himself, as against Z who has been injured without any want of due care on his own part, of the so-called contributory negligence of a third person B: It is true you were injured by my negligence, but it would not have happened if B had not been negligent also; therefore, you cannot sue me, or at all events, not apart from B; recent authority is decidedly against allowing such a defence and in one particular class of cases it has been emphatically disallowed. It must, however be open to A to answe to Z. You were not injured by my negligence at all, but only and wholly by B's. It seems to be question of fact rather than of law (as, within the usual limits of a jury's discretion, the question of ‘proximate’ cause is in all ordinary cases) what respective degrees of connection, in kind and degree, between the damage suffered by Z and the independent negligent conduct of A and B will make it proper to say that Z was injured by the negligence of A alone, or of B alone, or of both A and B. But if this last conclusion be arrived at, it is now quite clear that Z can sue both A and B”.

20. In dealing with the plea of contributory negligence as between persons guilty of composite negligence, the learned author has stated as follows at page 362 of the same book:

“The strict analysis of the proximate or immediate cause of the event and the injury, who could last have prevented the mischief by the exercise of the due care, is relevant only where the defendant says that the plaintiff suffered by his own negligence. Where negligent acts of two or more independent persons have between them caused damage to a third, the sufferer is not driven to apply any such analysis to find out whom he can sue. He is entitled of course, within the limits set by the general rules as to remoteness of damage to sue all or any of the negligent persons, it is no concern of his whether there is any duty of contribution or indemnity as between those persons though in any case he cannot recover in the whole more than his whole damage”

21. In Krishnaswami Naidu v. Narayanan a Bench of this Court dealt with a case where a passenger of a bus was killed by a collision of that bus with another bus and the legal representatives of the deceased passenger instituted a suit under Fatal Accidents Act, against the owners of both the buses. It was pointed out in that case that the case would fall in the category of what is described by Sir Frederick Pollock as injury arising from ‘composite negligence’. The last mentioned passage at page 362 of Pollock's Law of Torts by London (15th edition) has been extracted in the judgment and it is observed that the principle was applied by the majority of the Court of Appeal in Ireland in M. Kenna v. Stephens . 1923 2 L.R 112. and reference is also made to Beven on Negligence page 79.

22. The observation of the Tribunal in paragraph 22 of its judgment proceeds on I the assumption that R.W 2 M.K Subramanian is the negligent driver. R.W 2 M.K Subramanian got a licence to drive scooter in August 1961 as he had then a scooter, but he sold it in the same year. He admitted in his evidence that he had no scooter in 1962 and 1963 till he purchased the scooter from Anand five days prior to the accident on 16.12.1963 He denied the suggestion that subsequent to his purchase, he took out the scooter for driving for the first time on the date of accident. But in the criminal Court he has stated that he took the scooter from his friend Anand for the first time on that day alone. But in the criminal Court he has stated that since 1963 he was driving the scooter of his friends. It could, not be inferred from these facts alone that he is inexperienced and likely to be a negligent driver of scooter. We have already referred to other circumstances to show that the driver of the scooter was also negligent in driving the scooter so as to collide with the lorry. Thus it is obvious that the collision of the vehicles which caused the grievous injury to the claimant was the result of the composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles.

23. Mr. C.R Krishna Rao, appearing for the appellant in C.M.A No. 398 of 1964 contended that the driver of the scooter has been impleaded qua-driver and not as owner of the scooter and that under the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act dealing with the insurance of Motor Vehicles against third party risks the duty of the owner of the scooter to insure the vehicle against third party risks does not cover the case of a pillion rider carried gratuitously, that the driver of the scooter is not a necessary party to the claim and that the claim for damages or compensation against the driver of the scooter could not be determined by the Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal has found that the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company is not liable to the claimant by reason of its having issued an insurance policy to the owner of the scooter covering third party risks for the reasons stated in paragraph 24 of its judgment. The policy granted by the insurance company in respect of the scooter has not been produced in this case. There is thus no evidence to show that the insurance of the scooter covers any liability to persons carried on the pillion seat. Under section 95(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act a policy of insurance must be a policy which “insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-ruction (2) against any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to, any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in as public place”. But there is a proviso that a policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of the death or bodily injury sustained by an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment. The second clause of the proviso shows that it extends to persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward or in pursuance of a contract of employment. Thus the owner of the scooter is not bound to take out a policy in respect of third party risks to cover the claim of a pillion rider carried gratuitously. The Tribunal has rightly found in the absence of the policy issued by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company covering the claim of persons like the present claimant that the said company is not liable.

24. The claimant impleaded M.K Subramanian only as the driver of the scooter as made clear by the learned Advocate for the claimant before the Tribunal. The reason is that he had impleaded A.K Anand, the original owner of the scooter as the owner. But in his evidence, R.W 2 M.K Subramanian admitted that he purchased the scooter five days prior to the occurrance and that after the purchase he is the owner of the scooter. Therefore, A.K Anand, the original owner of the scooter was held not liable for the claim. Hence the mere fact that M.K Subramanian has been impleaded as the driver of the scooter cannot affect his liability as the owner, if he really is the owner of the vehicle, though he has not been impleaded in that capacity. But it is really unnecessary to pursue the question whether in spite of R.W 2 M.K Subramanian having been impleaded as the driver, he could be held liable as the owner of the scooter in the view we are taking as regards his liability in these proceedings even as the driver.

25. Mr. C.R Krishna Rao referred to the last portion of section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act that in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer, as supporting his contention that the award could only be against the insurer. He referred to the machinery provided in section 110-E of the Act for the recovery of money due from the insurer in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue and pointed out that there is no provision for enforcing a claim against other persons. He relied on the above circumstances to show that the driver of a vehicle is not a necessary party and that no claim could be made against him before a Tribunal. It is true that the driver is not a necessary party even in a suit for damages against the owner of a vehicle for injury or death of person caused by the negligence of the driver. But, having regard to the provisions of the Act, the contention of Mr. C.R Krishna Rao is untenable. Section 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for the constitution of Claims Tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating upon the claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles. Section 110-F of the Act provides that:

“Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Claims Tribunal in respect of the claims for compensation shall be granted by the civil Court”

26. Thus the above provisions contained in sections 110(1) and 110-F of the Act taken together clearly show that the Claims Tribunal where ever constituted has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any question regarding any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area. The negligent driver of a vehicle is primarily responsible for the damages in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles and the liability of the owner of the vehicle is only a vicarious liability arising out of the relationship of master and servant. It is not disputed that under the provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act the owner of a vehicle could be made liable. In fact he would be liable if he fails to take out a policy covering the third party risks. Under section 97(4)(b) of the Act:

“If the liability of the insurer to the insured person is less than the liability of the insured person to third party, nothing in this Chapter shall affect the rights of the third party against the insured person in respect of the balance”

27. The form of application for compensation does not specifically provide for the claimant furnishing particulars of the driver of the vehicle but this information could be furnished against the last entry ‘any other information that may be necessary or helpful in the disposal of the claim’. It is true the form of application for compensation is not comprehensive. In a suit for damages for injury caused by negligent driving of a vehicle the particulars of the negligence giving rise to the cause of action should be given. But it is significant to note that there is no provision in the form of application for compensation calling upon a claimant to give such particulars. In Seethamma v. Benedict D'Sa, it is pointed out that the prescribed form is a poor substitute for plaint. It is not possible to construe the provisions of the Act with reference to the form or even the Rules framed under the Act. The provisions contained in sections 110(1) and 110-F of the Act are comprehensive and wide enough to cover all claims for compensation in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of motor vehicles. Section 110-B of the Act is as follows;

“On receipt of an application for compensation made under section 110-A the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim and may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid, and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer”.

28. The last portion of the above section requiring the Tribunal to specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer refers only to one of the duties of the Tribunal. The earlier portion of the section requires the Claims Tribunal to give the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an enquiry into the claim and make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just. The parties clearly include the driver and the owner of the vehicle or vehicles who incurs any liability in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle.

29. It is true section 110-E of the Act provides for recovery of money from the insurer on the Collector's Certificate issued in pursuance of the award of the Claims Tribunal in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue and there is no provision in the Act for the recovery of money from the driver of the vehicle. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it originally stood, there was no provision to recover the arrears of pay and allowance due to a workman though an award may reinstate him to his previous service and declare him to be entitled to the arrears of his pay and allowance. In Bilash Chandra v. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Lid. it has been held that the remedy provided by section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by way of penalty does not deprive the individual rights of action in cases where the award confers any personal right or benefit to particular employees for the purpose of bringing about industrial peace among the whole body of employees who are espousing the cause of the particular employee or employees and that a workman can realise the arrears of his pay and allowances to which he is declared entitled under the Award by bringing an action in a civil Court on the Award. Normally a party would be satisfied by proceeding against the insurer, but in cases like the present one where the insurer of the vehicle could not be proceeded against, recourse should only be had against the driver and owner of the vehicle. Even if it is assumed that Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles, Act does not provide for the machinery to enforce the liability of the driver or owner of the vehicle as declared in the Award it would not prevent the claimant from enforcing the claim against the said persons by filing a suit on the Award. Hence the absence of a machinery to enforce the Award against the driver cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the claim against the driver of the vehicle. If the argument of Mr. C.R Krishna Rao is accepted, it would lead to the anomalous position of driving the claimant to have recourse to the Tribunal for his claim against the owner and the insurer and the ordinary civil Court for the claim against the driver. Such an interpretation is not warranted having regard to the clear provisions contained in sections 110(1) and 110-F of the Act.

30. In A.I.R 1967 Mys. 11 at p. 21 it has been held that a claim for compensation can be made under Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act not only against the owner of the motor vehicle and the insurer, but also against the driver whose negligence gives rise to the claim for compensation. It has been held in that decision that there is no provision in the Act forbidding recovery of compensation through the machinery provided by Chapter VIII from the driver of the vehicle who is principally responsible for the death or injury if there be negligence on his part and that the claim for compensation against him could be made only under the provisions of that Chapter to the Claims Tribunal and not to the civil Court whose jurisdiction is barred by section 110-F of the Act. The ratio of the decision is that having regard to section 110-F of the Act the insurer could not proceed against the driver for the recovery of compensation in a civil Court and that an interpretation leading to the result that he cannot be proceeded against even before the Claims Tribunal cannot be sound. But if really no machinery is provided for in Chapter VIII of the Act, the remedy of the claimant is only to file a suit on the Award which creates a debt against the driver of the vehicle and such a suit would not be barred by reason of section 110-F of the Act. It is for the legislature to make provision in Chapter VIII of the Act for enforcing claims against other parties such as the driver. Evidently no such provision has been made as a party would generally be satisfied by getting his claim enforced by proceeding summarily against the insurer on the strength of the Collector's Certificate obtained in pursuance of the Award.

31. Mr. C.R Krishna Rao urged that the claimant was only a licensee as he was carried gratuitously by the driver of the scooter and that the duty of the owner of the scooter was that owed by an occupier of a premises to a licensee, namely, to warn the licensee of any concealed danger of which he knows. As pointed out in “Winfield on Tort” 7th edition, at page 285, the distinction between invitees and licensees has for all practical purposes been abolished following the recommendation of the Law Reforms Committee and the passing of the Occupiers Liability Act, 1957 in England. In Harris v. Perry and Co. it is pointed out that the measure of duty towards a bare licensee is different, where the licensor accepts the duty of carrying him from what it is where he merely permits him to pass through his premises. At page 226 of the same decision the distinction is clearly emphasised in the following terms:

“There is an obvious difference between the measure of confidence reposed and responsibility accepted in the case of a person who merely receives permission to traverse the premises of another and in the case where a person or his property is received into the custody of another for transportation. In the case of persons received for carriage Parke, B. says in Lygo v. Newbold, a person who undertakes to provide for the conveyance of another although he does so gratuitously is bound to exercise due and reasonable care. In Austin v. Great Western Rly. Co. . 1867 2 Q.B 442 445. Brackburn, J., says, I think that what was said in the case of Marshall v. York Newcastle and Berwick Rly Co. . 1851 2 C.B 655. was quite correct. It was there laid down that the rightly which a passenger by railway has to be carried safely does not depend on his having made a contract, but that the fact of his being a passenger casts a duty on the company to carry him safely”

32. Hence the fact that the driver cum owner of the scooter carried the claimant gratuitously cannot absolve him of his liability for his negligence.

33. The next question to be considered is whether the damages payable by the driver, owner and insurer of each of the vehicles could be apportioned on the basis of the respective negligence of the drivers of the two vehicles. In State of Punjab v. Phool Kumari,5 it has been held that where by the fault of two or more persons damage is caused, the liability to make good the damage or loss shall be proportionate to the degree to which each person was at fault. The said decision of a single judge of the Punjab High Court proceeds on the authority of Lang v. London Transport Executive . 1959 3 All E.R 609. as justifying the apportioning of liability among tort-feasors. But it should be noted that the common law of England that such damages should not be apportioned except in cases coming within the admiralty jurisdiction was changed by a statute in England in 1935, when Married Women and Tort-feasors Act., 1935, (25 and 26 Geo. V.C 30) was passed. In Winfield on Tort, 7th edition, at page 766 it is stated that in a judgment against joint tort-feasors the damages awarded must be for a single sum without any apportionment among the defendants and execution for the whole of this amount can, if the plaintiff sees fit, be levied against only one of the defendants and that until the Act of 1935 the general rule was that he could get neither an indemnity for the whole of what he had paid nor contribution of an aliquot part of it. The learned author has pointed out that this was laid down in Merryweather v. Nixam, and was extended from joint tortfeasors to independent tort-feasors causing the same damage. In Nawal Kishore v. Rameshwar Nath, it has been pointed out that the Courts in India act on the principle of equity, justice and good conscience in matters which are not covered by statute and rely upon the principles established under the English Law to find out what the rule of justice, equity and good conscience is. It has been held in that decision that clause 6(1)(b) of the Married Women and Tort-feasors Act of 1935 is not necessarily based on any principle of equity, justice, or good conscience and there is no justifiable reason why in the subsequent suit if more than one suit is brought for damages against different persons, the plaintiff should be restricted to the amount decreed against one tortfeasor in his suit against the other joint-tortfeasors against whom the cause of action is not only joint, but joint and several. It should be observed that the principles of justice, equity and good conscience do not go on varying in India every time the common law is amended by a statute in England. In AIR 1939 Mad. 261 Varadachariar, J. held that there could be no apportionment of liability in cases like the present one. If we were at all compelled to apportion the liability between the owners of the lorry and the scooter on the basis of English decisions rendered after the Married Women and Tort-feasors Act of 1935, we would be inclined to hold the owner of the lorry to be mainly responsible for the collision and make him liable for 9/10th of the damages and make the owner of the scooter liable only for the remaining 1/10th. But in view of the above decision, no such apportionment can be made.

34. Mr. S. Mohan appearing for the Co-operative Fire and General Insurance Society Limited which had insured the lorry urged that the interlocutory order of the Tribunal dated 20.7.1964 that the Insurance Company shall have no right to put questions to the witnesses except with reference to the grounds specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act is wrong. The said Society filed C.R.P No. 1659 of 1964 against the said order. But it was dismissed on the ground that the order sought to be revised was an interlocutory one and that if the proceedings were to terminate ultimately against the society, it could challenge the propriety of the order in the appeal against the judgment. Under section 110-B of the Act the Claims Tribunal shall after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an enquiry into the claim and may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid by the insurer and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer. Thus the insurer is an important party in the claim before the Tribunal as the amount payable by it should be clearly specified in the award. The Claims Tribunal has restricted the rights of the insurance company to cross examine the claimant and his witnesses on its construction of section 96 of the Act. It should be noted that section 96 of the Act was introduced several years before the constitution of the Claims Tribunal by the present section 110 of the Act. At the time when section 96 of the Act first came into force there was no Claims Tribunal. Section 96 was introduced in order to enforce the duty of insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risk by giving them notice after judgment obtained by third party against persons insured in respect of third party risk. It is only in such cases that the defences open to the insurer are restricted to the grounds mentioned in section 96(2) of the Act. A reading of section 96 would clearly show that it was not intended to govern enquiry before a Claims Tribunal. Section 96 contemplates proceedings in a Court and not proceedings before a Tribunal. It contemplates notice being given to the insurer which may be before or after judgment is obtained against the person who had effected insurance for third party risk. The insurer is no doubt entitled to be made a party and defend the action on the grounds mentioned in that section. But in the proceedings before a Claims Tribunal the insurer is a party. The decisions in Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. v. Sarla Devi and B.I.G Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Itbar Singh holding that an insurer is not entitled to take any defence which is not mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 96 of the Act are all decisions in which the insurers were given notice in proceedings by way of suit as contemplated under the provisions of section 96 of the Act. It has been rightly pointed out in those decisions that apart from the statute, an insurer has no right to be made a party to the action by the injured person against the insured causing the injury and that the rights open to the insurer are therefore governed by those provided in the section. The decisions do not relate to proceedings before 8 Claims Tribunal where the insurers are made parties and the scope of the defences which they wish to put forward has not in any way been restricted. The contention of Mr. C.R Krishna Rao is that if section 96 could have no application to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal it would have been deleted after section 110 was introduced in the Act. But the obvious answer is that it is only after a Claims Tribunal is constituted by the State Government by a notification in the Official Gazette, the civil Court's jurisdiction would be barred. There may be States where a Claims Tribunal may not have been constituted and in those State, section 96 of the Act could be invoked and the insurance company could be permitted to take only the defences allowed under section 96 of the Act in respect of the judgment obtained by a third party. In our opinion, the insurance companies who are mainly responsible to satisfy the claims of third parties and who are parties to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal and who are entitled to cross-examine cannot be restricted to the defences specified in section 96(2) of the Act.

35. The order of the Claims Tribunal dated 20-7-1964 is wrong. Strictly speaking the Co-operative Fire and General Insurance Society Ltd., would be entitled to recall and cross-examine the witnesses, though they had been cross-examined by the owner of the lorry. But Mr. Mohan appearing for the Society fairly stated before us that he does not want to cross-examine the witnesses of the claimant as the Advocate for the owner of the lorry had effectively cross-examined the witnesses on the several points. In view of this concession it is unnecessary to direct the Claims Tribunal to allow the Advocate for the Society to cross-examine the witnesses for the claimant after recalling them and to submit the said evidence to this Court for final disposal of the case we have made the observations in the earlier paragraph only for the purpose of clarifying the scope of participation in the proceedings by the insurer.

36. One other contention urged by Mr. S. Mohan, is that the liability of the insurance company restricted to a sum of Rs. 20,000 under sub-section (2) of section 95 of the Act. But in our opinion, this contention has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. sub-section (2) of section 95 of the Act clearly governs only the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 95 of the Act. Thus it is clear from the terms of sub-section (2) to section 95 that they are subject to the proviso to sub-section (1). Under the proviso (i) to sub-section (1) a policy shall not be required to cover liability of any such employee as is referred to therein who is (a) engaged in driving the vehicle or (b) is a conductor of the vehicle or (c) persons carried in a vehicle. Clause (iii) of the proviso excludes contractual liability. Subject to the said three clauses or the above proviso, sub-section (2) of section 95 provides the limits of liability of the insurer to Rs. 20,000 in all, in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to employees, to Rs. 20,000 in respect of all passengers and Rs. 4,000 in respect of an individual passenger if the vehicle is registered to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver and to a limit of Rs. 2,000 in respect of an individual passenger if the vehicle is registered to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver. In the cases of vehicles of any other class the limit is the amount of the liability incurred. Thus sub-section (2) of section 95 of the Act cannot be invoked to restrict the liability of the Co-operative Fire and General Insurance Society Limited to Rs. 20,000 in this case. sub-section (2) of section 95 of the Act can have no application to damages caused to third parties like the claimant in this case as he is not one of the class of persons referred to in the proviso to section 95(1) of the Act.

37. The only remaining question to be considered in these appeals is the quantum of damages. The claimant assessed his damage at Rs. 3,60,210 under eight heads. But the Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 57,865-37 P. At the out-set, we have to point out that the appellate Court will be loath to interfere with the quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal unless there is an error in principle in awarding damages, or the damages awarded under any head is so excessive or unreasonable as to call for interference. It is enough to deal with the specific objections put forward by the parties on the question of damages.

38. Mr. K.K Venugopal, the learned Advocate for the claimant objects to the total disallowance of Rs. 10,000 claimed for inconvenience and loss of enjoyment and amenities. The Tribunal was of the view that no separate compensation need be awarded under this item as it should be deemed to have been included in items 4 to 6. Mr. K.K Venugopal urged that some damages should have been awarded under this head for reduced prospects of marriage. At page 15 of Kemp on the “Quantum of Damages”, 2nd edition, it is stated that in the case of a female plaintiff serious injury or disfigurement may greatly reduce her prospects of marriage and that quite apart from other aspects of the matter, which fall to be considered under the head of loss of amenities, such a matter would represent a real material loss, especially in the case of a woman who regarded marriage as her real prospective career and who had not been educated or trained for anything else. It is stated in the same page that an injury which handicaps her in the marriage market represents a real pecuniary loss. Apart from the fact that the claimant did not put forward any claim before the Tribunal on the ground that his prospect of marriage was reduced by reason of the loss of his left leg, the one answer that could be given to this claim is that it is doubtful whether the claimant would have better prospects of marriage with an artificial left leg and a sum of Rs. 57,865.37 than with his original left leg without this sum awarded as damages. If the claimant had been incapacitated for marital life by reason of the accident one can understand a claim for damages on that account.

39. The only other objection urged by Mr. K.K Venugopal is that under item 4 relating to prospective loss of earnings, the Tribunal has after computing thirty years income as Rs. 1,08,000 deducted 40 per cent for loss of efficiency and reduced the figure to Rs. 40,000 in view of the fact that the lump sum awarded as compensation if invested would earn interest, Mr. K.K Venugopal referred to the passage in Kemp on the “Quantum of Damages” at page 32 Volume 1, dealing with a case in Ferguson v. Durastic and Ben Line Steamers Ltd., where Groom-Johnson, J. assessed the prospective loss of wages at £2500 for ten years and reduced one-fifth for the reasons indicated in his judgment. The contention of Mr. K.K Venugopal is that in this case also the deduction should have been only 20 per cent to 40 per cent. But the deduction of 40 per cent in this case is based on the evidence of P.W 6 Dr. Varma as to the extent to which the claimant lost his efficiency and was therefore not normal on account of the loss of the left leg. The facts of the case in (1951) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 324 might have justified the deduction of only 20 percent. Mr. K.K Venugopal further urged that the earnings of the claimant should not have been computed for thirty years alone as he could be expected to earn at least till his retirement in his fiftyfifth year. But the claimant is now a student and he is not earning anything now. His earning capacity would arise only after he completes his course at the end of five years, and if so computed from his 25th year, the calculation of the total earnings for 30 years adopted by the Tribunal is fully justified. Thus, we are unable to uphold the above objections put forward by Mr. K.K Venugopal, for the claimant.

40. The objection urged by the owners of the scooter and the lorry is that the medical expenses and out of pocket expenses for which a sum of Rs. 6,865.37 is awarded have not been strictly proved in this case. It is true that Ex. P-5 is not the original account kept by the claimant's father, P.W 11 but only an extract from his regular accounts written by his daughter to his dictation. But the claimant has produced the vouchers, Ex P-3 series, which the Tribunal has considered in assessing the total expenses to be allowed as Rs. 4,615.37. The Tribunal has allowed Rs. 250 for Nursing Home charges and Rs. 2,000 for future expenses for renewing the artificial limb periodically. We see no sufficient grounds to interfere with the assessment of damages under items 1 and 2. It is true that the sum of Rs. 1,500 paid to Dr. Verma as per voucher No. 59 has not been spoken to either by Dr. Verma, or by the claimant's father P.W 11. But it should be noted that the vouchers have all been marked by consent and treated as evidence. Further, there is nothing in Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act to show that the Tribunal should act strictly in enforcing the Evidence Act. It is true the Tribunal is not in the position of an arbitrator but it is entitled to rely on the vouchers produced by the claimant and not objected to by the respondents before the Tribunal.

41. In H. West and Son Ltd. v. Shephard, the House of Lords upheld the award of general damages there having been no error in principle in assessment. It was held in that decision that the award of a sum of £17,500 was high on the particular facts of the case. But in the view of the majority judgment in that case, it was not so high as to call for interference. We see no sufficient ground or justification to interfere with the sum of Rs. 57,865.37 awarded as damages.

42. In the result, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified by making the driver of the lorry Sankaranarayanan, the owner of the lorry T.U.C.S Ltd., and the Co-operative Fire and General Insurauce Society Ltd., the insusurer of the lorry also liable along with the owner driver of the scooter M.K Sub-ramaniam for the damages of Rupees 57,865.37. Mr. K.K Venugopal urged that the claimant has paid Advocate's fee of Rs. 1,500/- and that the Advocate fee of Rs. 100 allowed by the Tribunal is low. We are not inclined to interfere with the Advocate's fee of Rs. 100 fixed by the Tribunal in its discretion.

43. In the result, C.M.A No. 39P of 1964 is dismissed with the costs of the claimant (one set) and C.M.A No. 358 of 1964 is allowed against the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry with costs (one set), but dismissed against A.K Anand, the original owner of the scooter and the insurer of the scooter with costs.