- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. v. Balkishan And Anr
Factual and Procedural Background
On July 7, 1973 at about 9 A.M., Amar Nath Sachdeva, who kept a newspaper stall at the bus stand in Zira, was run over by a truck bearing registration PNB-2560 while crossing the road to hand a bundle of newspapers to a bus driver. He was taken to a hospital in Amritsar and died later that night. The claimants in the Tribunal were the deceased's two minor sons, Balkishan and Yudhvir. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the claimants. The present appeal challenged aspects of the Tribunal's findings, including contentions that (a) the accident occurred entirely due to the deceased's own fault or, alternatively, that the deceased was contributorily negligent and the award should be reduced on that account, and (b) the legality of an award of Rs. 5,000/- claimed to be for loss of love and affection.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the fatal accident was caused solely by the deceased's negligence, or whether the truck driver was primarily at fault.
- If both parties bore fault, whether the Tribunal should have reduced the compensation awarded on account of contributory negligence and, if so, by what extent.
- Whether the Tribunal's award (including the Rs. 5,000/- said to be for loss of love and affection) was legal and appropriate in amount.
- How compensation should be computed in light of available evidence of the deceased's income and relevant legal principles.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The accident occurred entirely due to the deceased's own fault because he proceeded to cross the road without taking due care to see whether it was safe to do so.
- In the alternative, the deceased was contributorily negligent and the Tribunal should have reduced the compensation accordingly; however, no reduction was made.
- The legality of the award of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for loss of love and affection was questioned.
Respondent's Arguments
- The respondents (defence) contended that the deceased was negligent: their version was that the deceased had crossed half the road, upon hearing a horn he suddenly stopped and turned back, and in doing so struck the right mud-guard of the truck.
- It was denied that the truck was being driven at a fast speed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, 1979 P.L.R. 1 | Principles for computation of compensation in fatal accident cases (Full Bench guidance on factors such as age, occupation, multiplier, etc.). | The court applied the Full Bench principles from this authority to select an appropriate multiplier (7) and to guide assessment of pecuniary loss when computing compensation for the claimants. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed the evidence on causation and negligence, the credibility of witnesses, and the appropriate method for computing compensation.
On causation and negligence:
- The Tribunal had earlier found the truck driver, Darbara Singh, guilty of "culpable negligence" and simultaneously observed that the deceased had contributed to negligence by attempting to cross without caution; however, the Tribunal did not reduce the compensation for contributory negligence. The appellate court noted this omission but proceeded to determine blame and extent of contributory negligence.
- The eye-witness evidence (AW.1 Sardara Singh and AW.2 Constable Swaran Singh) supported a finding that the truck was moving at high speed and that no horn was blown. AW.1 stated the truck was at high speed and stopped about 20 to 25 yards from the place of impact; AW.2 said the truck stopped 10 to 15 yards away.
- The court observed that AW.1 had given a different statement in a criminal case (saying the truck was being driven at a slow speed), but treated the stopping distance (about 20 yards) as independently indicative of high speed because no inconsistency had been alleged regarding that fact.
- The truck driver (RW.1) gave a different version—introducing for the first time that a car came from the opposite direction causing the deceased to turn back—and this version was neither in the driver's return nor put to the eye-witnesses, so the court treated it as an afterthought.
- The court noted absence of any suggestion that brakes had been applied by the truck driver; it reasoned that a vehicle travelling slowly would not need roughly 20 yards to stop. Coupled with the location being near a bus stand (a locality in which slower speed was incumbent), the court held the truck driver breached the duty of care owed by road users to avoid harm to others.
- The court concluded that although the truck driver's rash and negligent driving was the principal cause, the deceased also bore contributory negligence for proceeding to cross without due care. The court quantified contributory negligence at 25%.
On assessment of compensation:
- The court applied the Full Bench principles from Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur (1979 P.L.R. 1) to compute compensation, taking into account age, health, occupation and the general situation of the deceased. The deceased was about 55 years old; the claimants were 16 and 9 years old at the time of death.
- Testimony of AW.3 (Balkishan) was unrebutted that the deceased earned about Rs. 1,600/- per month. Exhibit A-7 (a demand notice from Income-tax authorities) indicated an annual income of almost Rs. 20,000/-, with business income shown as Rs. 15,000/- per annum.
- The court assumed conservatively that the loss to claimants was at least Rs. 800/- per month (taking only business income as lost). Using the chosen multiplier of 7, the court calculated compensation (quoted in the opinion as "Rs. 67,2000/-").
- After accounting for the 25% deduction for contributory negligence by the deceased, the court found that the resultant amount payable to the claimants would be almost the same as the amount already awarded by the Tribunal (Rs. 50,000/-), and therefore concluded that the Tribunal's award required no interference.
Holding and Implications
Holding: APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS DISMISSED.
The court explicitly dismissed the appeal and the cross-objections and ordered that there would be no order as to costs.
Implications:
- The Tribunal's compensation award (Rs. 50,000/-) was upheld; the appellate court found no need to alter the amount awarded in view of its computation and the deduction for contributory negligence. The court quantified contributory negligence at 25% but concluded that, after deduction, the amount due to the claimants would be almost the same as the Tribunal award.
- The court applied established Full Bench principles (Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur) for computation of compensation and selected a multiplier of 7 for this case.
- The opinion does not state that it sets any new legal precedent beyond applying existing principles; the direct effect is the dismissal of the appeal and cross-objections and the upholding of the Tribunal's award, with no costs ordered.
Note: This summary is strictly confined to the findings, reasoning and materials expressly contained in the provided opinion. No information beyond the text of the opinion has been added.
1. Amar Nath Sachdeva, who had a newspaper stall at the bus stand Zira was run-over by the truck PNB-2560 while going across the road to hand over a bundle of newspapers to the driver of the bus going to Talwandi Bhai. This happended on July 7, 1973 at about 9 A.M. He died later at night at the hospital at Amritsar, where he had been taken after the accident.
2. It is in respect of this accident that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the claimants, who are the two minor sons of the deceased, Balkishan and Yudhvir.
3. The contention raised in appeal was that the accident had occurred entirely due to the fault of the deceased, himself, as he had proceeded to cross the road without caring to see whether or not it was safe to do so. In the alternative, it was argued that this was a case of contributory negligence and despite a finding to this fact no reduction in compensation has been made on account thereof.
4. The legality of the award of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for loss of love and affection was also questioned.
5. A reading of the award of the Tribunal would show that while dealing with the issue of negligence, it had been held that the driver of the truck was "guilty of culpable negligence" as the accident had been caused due to the rashness and negligence of Darbara Singh, driver. Turning to the issue relating to the amount payable as compensation however, the Tribunal observed, "since the accident had taken place due to the rashness and negligence of Darbara Singh respondent, the applicants are entitled to compensation but it will have to be borne in mind that Amar Nath (deceased) had also contributed to the negligence to some extent as he had tried to cross the road without being cautious of[the vehicles moving on the road and that the accident had taken place when he had retraced mid-way. This circumstance will be taken into account only for the purposes of arriving at a conclusion about the damages."
6. The Tribunal appears to have over-looked these findings when awarding compensation as admittedly no reduction was made on account thereof. Be that as it may, the question remains, who is to be blamed for accident and to what extent. There is no dispute that the deceased was run over while trying to cross the road. What was stated in the claim application was that when the deceased had stepped on to the road, he suddenly saw a truck coming from the side of Talwandi Bhai. This truck was being driven rashly and negligently. No horn was blown. In order to save himself, the deceased tried to get back but was over-taken by the truck and was fatally injured thereby. Negligence was thus imputed to the truck driver.
7. The respondents, on the other hand, took the plea that it was the deceased, who had been negligent. The version being that he had crossed half of the road when on hearing the horn, he suddenly stopped and turned back. In the meanwhile, the truck reached there and the deceased struck against the right mud-guard thereof. It was denied that the truck was being driven at a fast speed.
8. Turning now to the evidence on record the eye witness account of the occurrence was given by AW. 1 Sardara Singh, the Addl Incharge, who deposed that he was on duty there when the accident took place. According to him, the truck came at a high speed. He heard no horn. The deceased was in the middle of the road, when he was run-over. The truck stopped 20 to 25 yards away from the place of impact. Next is the testimony of AW. 2 Constable Swaran Singh who was on traffic duty at that time. He stated that he did not actually see the truck hitting into the deceased, but he deposed that the truck had stopped 10 to 15 yards from him.
9. It deserves note that AW. 1 Sardara Singh had also been examined as a witness in the criminal case against the truck driver. His statement there was that the truck was being driven at a slow speed. In the face of this contradictory evidence, what becomes important is the distance at which the truck stopped after the accident. No inconsistency was alleged here. The fact that it had stopped about 20 yards away is by itself indicative of the fast speed of the truck at that time.
10. The main evidence of the respondents on this issue is the statement of RW. 1 Darbara Singh, the truck driver. His testimony was that Amar Nath, deceased, had crossed the middle of the road when a car came from the opposite side. Amar Nath immediately turned back and struck against the right mud-guard of the truck. He further stated that the truck had been travelling at slow speed and hold down the born.
11. The version of the car having come from the opposite direction and the deceased having turned back on seening it was for the first time put forth when the truck driver came into the witness box. There was no mention of it in the return filed by him nor was it put to either AW. 1 Sardara Singh or AW. 2 Constable Swaran Singh. This cannot, therefore, but be treated to be an afterthought.
12. Further, it deserves note that there is no mention that the truck driver applied breakes on seeing the deceased. If indeed the truck had been coming a t a slow speed, it would not have required a distance of almost 20 yards for it to stop. There is a duty of care owed by all road users to avoid harm or in jury to others. An essential part of this duty consists in regulating the speed at which a vehicle is driven in a particular area or locality the present case, being near the bus stand, it was clearly incumbent upon the truck driver to have driven it at a slow speed. In these circumstances, the truck driver cannot escape finding of negligence, moreso, when regard is had to the fact that the accident had occurred in the middle of the road and consequently there was a greater chance available with the truck driver to avoid the accident than the deceased. The deceased too cannot escape blame in that he had proceeded to go across the road without taking due care to see whether it was safe to do so. In the circumstances, therefore, it must be held that the accident here was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver and there was also contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 25 per cent.
13. Next arises the question relating to the amount payable as compensation to the claimants. The claimants here being Balkishan and Yudhvir, the sons of the deceased, who were 16 and 9 years old respectively at the time of the death of the deceased. Amar Nath, deceased, was about 55 years of age at the time of his death. It is now well settled that computation of compensation in such cases has to be assessed and determined in accordance with the principles as laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 P.L.R. 1. In the context of the relevant factors set out therein considering the age, health, nature of occupation and generally the situation of the deceased, it would be fair and just to take the appropriate multiplier here to be 7. As regards the financial loss, it was the unrebutted testimony of AW. 3 Balkishan that the deceased was earning about Rs. 1600/- per month. There is also on the record and demand notice Exhibit A-7 from the Income-tax authorities which shows the income of the deceased to be almost Rs. 20,000/-per annum. The business income being Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Assuming the loss that the claimants have suffered here to be only in the business income, the other part of the income would still be available to them. On this basis, it would be reasonable to assume that the loss would be atleast at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month. The compensation, on this basis, would work out to Rs. 67,2000/- and after making a deduction on account of the contributory negligence of the deceased, the amount payable to the claimants would turn out to be almost as much as the amount already awarded. In this view of the matter, the amount awarded warrants no interference in appeal.
14. In the result, the appeal as also the cross-objections filed herein are thereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert