P.D Sharma, J.:— On 18th September, 1960, at 5.45 P.M an accident occurred at a crossing in the area of Ambala Cantonment as a result of which Harjit Singh lost his life, and Bibi Rajinder Kaur, aged 7 years, suffered serious injuries on her right leg. Puran Chand respondent No. 1 was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. Messrs Harnam Singh Harbans Singh, respondent No. 2 owned the truck. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3 were the insurers.

2. Mohan Singh father and Mrs. Iqbal Kaur mother Parminder Kaur and Kanwaljit Kaur minor sisters of Harjit Singh applied to the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act for an award of Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation for the death of Harjit Singh aged 21 or 22 years. They alleged that on 18th September, 1910 at about 5-40 P.M Harjit Singh was going on his Motor-cycle while the minor Bibi Rajinder Kaur was occupying the pillion seat and when they had crossed half of the junction between the roads leading to Lal Kurti Bazar and the other to Railway Station, Ambala Cantonment, Puran Chand respondent No. 1 who was driving negligently and at a high speed truck No. D.L.G 306 owned by Messrs Harnam Singh Harbans Singh respondent No. 2 towards the Railway Station knocked down the Motor-cycle cn account of which both Harjit Singh and Bibi Rajinder Kaur were thrown on the road receiving serious injuries. The moving truck dragged the Motorcycle for some distance and after striking against a nearby electric pole came to standstill. Harjit Singh and Bibi Rajinder Kaur were immediately rushed to the Military Hospital where the former soon after succumbed to the injuries and the latter's two shin-bones (femur and fibula) on X-ray examination were found fractured. She was treated in the hospital as indoor patient upto 9th October, 1960, but was not able to attend to her studies till the month of February, 1961.

3. Bibi Rajinder Kaur, her father Bhajan Singh Gujral and mother Mrs. Shanti Devi applied to the Claims Tribunal for awarding them Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of the injuries suffered by first of them in the accident said to have been occasioned by rash, careless and negligent driving of the truck by Puran Chand respondent No. 1.

4. The respondents in their written statement pleaded that Harjit Singh was primarily responsible for the accident as he was driving his Motor-cycle at a high speed and in a careless manner and that in fact that he dashed against the left front flank of the truck as a result of which he and Bibi Rajinder Kaur were thrown on the road and received injuries. The Claims Tribunal consolidated proceedings in both of these cases and framed the following issues:—

1. Whether the accident is due to the rash and negligent act of Puran Chand or of the deceased Harjit Singh?

2. What is the quantum of compensation due, if any, from whom and to whom?

5. He observed that Puran Chand respondent No. 1 at the crucial time was driving his truck at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident. He awarded Rs. 9,600/- as compensation to the parents of Harjit Singh and Rs. 10,400/- to Bibi Rajinder Kaur. They were also allowed costs of the proceedings. In his opinion the two minor sisters of Harjit Singh and parents of Bibi Rajinder Kaur were not entitled to any compensation.

6. The respondents felt aggrieved from the above order of the Tribunal and filed two separate appeals, Nos. F.A.O 95 and 94 of 1962 against (1) Mohan Singh and his wife Mr. Iqbal Kaur and (2) Bibi Rajinder Kaur. The latter also was not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the, Tribunal to her and lodged the third appeal, No. F.A.O 57 of 1962. This judgment will dispose of all these three appeals as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants in F.A.O Nos. 94 and 95 of 1962 contended that the Tribunal wrongly held that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of Puran Chand, respondent No. 1 driver of the truck and that the compensation allowed to the complainants was both excessive and arbitrary and had been computed without any basis. He took me through the evidence led by the parties in extenso which may briefly be alluded to here. Krishan Suri A.W 4 at the time of the accident was proceeding on his scooter from Lal Kurti Bazar towards the scene of occurrence and when he was at point ‘S’ reference plan exhibit A.W 3/2, he saw Harjit Singh and Bibi Rajinder Kaur coming on a Motor-cycle from the opposite direction. According to him the speed of the motor-cycle was about 15-20 miles per hour. He went on to state that when the Motor cyclist had crossed more than half of the chowk the truck came from the Capital Cinema side at a high speed which was in any case more than 40 miles an hour and knocked down the Motorcycle throwing Harjit Singh and Bibi Rajinder Kaur on the road side. The truck is said to have dragged the Motor Cycle alongwith it for a distance of 15 to 16 feet and then stopped after striking the masonry base of an electric pole which has been marked as ‘K’ in the plan. The witness got down from his scooter and went to the place where the two injured persons were lying. He asked Balwant Singh, P.W to wait on the spot and himself proceeded on the scooter towards the police station and met Devinder Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, A.W 3, in the way who recorded his statement A.W 3/1 by way of first information report.

8. Prabhjot Singh A.W 5 who saw the accident from point ‘E’ reference plan Exhibit A.W 3/2, fully corroborated the statement of the previous witness. Devinder Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector A.W 3 reached the spot alongwith Krishan Suri A.W 4 immediately after recording the first information report which he sent to the Police Station for formal registration of the case. He noticed that the motor-cycle was lying under the front portion of the truck towards the front left wheel and the truck itself was resting against the electric pole half masonry base of which had been badly damaged. He noticed that front wheel of the Motor-cycle was not damaged and that left front side of the truck was damaged. He prepared the site plan, Exhibit A.W 3/2. He observed skid marks on the spot which extended over a distance of 76 feet. These have been shown in the plan.

9. Dr. G.R Sakuja, A.W 1, conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Harjit Singh. According to him death was due to shock and hemorrhage as the result of head injuries which were sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature. He conceded that the injuries could be due to truck accident.

10. Lt. Col. I.S Chohan A.W 2 examined Bibi Rajinder Kaur soon after the accident and noticed the following injuries on her person:

1. Multiple abrasions of various sizes round about the elbow (left) and the upper ⅓ of the left fore-arm.

2. A lacerated wound about 2″ long and ½″ wide muscle deep on the postero medical aspect of the upper third of right leg 3″ below the right knee;

3. Multiple abrasions of sizes varying from ½″ to 1″ long on the right knee and leg;

4. A bruise over the left ankle. No evidence of bony injury. X-Ray advised of the right leg revealed fractures of both bones of the right leg.

11. He testified to the fact that Bibi Rajinder Kaur stayed in the hospital as indoor patient upto 8th October, 1960, and at the time of her discharge from the Hospital her right leg was in plaster. He proved the receipt for Rs. 92.50 n.p signed by Captain B.L Gupta after receiving the charges about the treatment of the girl. He said that Rs. 150/- could be the fee of the surgeon who operated on the right leg of the girl on the date he gave his statement in the Court and opined that right lower limb seemed to be shortened by slight degree as compared to the left and that when the patient walked on the ground bare-footed, she slightly limped with the right lower limb. He further stated that the deformity was likely to be permanent.

12. Lt. Col. A.K Bose A.W 6 incharge of Surgical Division, Military Hospital, Ambala Cantonment, examined Bibi Rajinder Kaur on 22nd February, 1961, and recorded the result of his examination in A.W 6/1. According to him 80 percent disability had been caused to the right leg of the girl.

13. Pran Nath A.W 8, Resident Manager of the commercial concern proved tint Harjit had been appointed as a draftsman by the firm and he was promised to pay at the rate of Rs. 150/- per mensem just before the accident. Sat Pal Sharma A.W 9, Charan Singh A.W 10 got their plans prepared for their houses from the deceased and paid him Rs. 30/- and Rs. 25/- as his fee respectively. Mohan Singh A.W 11 is father of Harjit Singh who stated that the deceased was earning about Rs. 210/- per mensem and used to send Rs. 50/- to 60/- per mensem to him out of his income. He also proved that the Employment Exchange had called him for an interview for job in the scale of Rs. 110-4-150 EB-4-170-5-180-EB-5-200. He further proved the expenditure incurred by him in conducting the criminal case against Puran Chand driver and stated that the death of his son had deprived him of his means of sustenance after his retirement from Government service which was due shortly. Bhajan Singh A.W 12 is father of Bibi Rajinder Kaur. He gave out that Rs. 200/- were spent by him on the medical treatment of his daughter and Rs. 300/- on her medicine etc. He further testified that his daughter was suffering from a permanent limp which adversely affected her chances of getting married to a good boy. The eye-witnesses, namely, Krishan Suri and Prabhjot Singh A.Ws are not only disinterested but respectable also. Their testimony that Puran Chand was driving truck at a fast speed finds support from the unimpeachable surrounding circumstances such as presence of skid marks on the spot extending over a distance of 76 feet, bursting of the brake hose-pipe of the truck and the dragging of the Motor-cycle over a long distance and striking of the truck against the electric pole damaging a good part of its masonry base before coming to a stop.

14. In rebuttal Hanuman R.W 1, Siri Chand R.W 2, Amru Ram R.W 6 who are said to have been travelling in the truck at the time of the accident deposed to the effect that Puran Chand driver, blew the horn when entering the crossing and that the Motor-cyclist paid no heed to it and dashed against the front wheel of the truck. They are employees of the owner of the truck. Their evidence is negatived by the fact that front wheel of the Motor-cycle remained undamaged and the left front portion of the truck was damaged and not the left flank of the truck. Their statements were rightly ignored by the Tribunal. They admitted that the Motor-cyclist and Bibi Rajinder Kaur were thrown on the road. Raghbir Singh R.W 3 is stated to have seen the girl going to the School alone or in the company of her other class-fellows. According to him she was normal in walking and did not suffer from any infirmity. His evidence has been contradicted by an eminent medical expert Lt. Col. I.S Chohan. Mistri Ishar Singh is a motor mechanic. He is of the view that if the brakes are applied suddenly the flexible pipe of the brake at times gives way. Harnam Daso retired Assistant Inspector Police, a motor mechanic examined the ill-fated truck on 26th October, 1960 and found its brakes damaged. In his opinion if the brakes are applied suddenly with some force the brake hose pipe is likely to give way but this will not happen if the vehicle is moving at a slow speed. He further said that if the brakes of the truck had not been working from the beginning there would not have been any skid marks on the road. Bal-want Singh R.W 5 Manager Sikh Girls High School, Ambala Cantt., proved that Bibi Rajinder Kaur remained absent from the school from 16th September, 1960 to 8th February, 1961. Puran Chand R.W 8 driver of the truck also deposed in terms of the statements of Hanuman R.W 1 and others which have already been shown to be unworthy of reliance.

15. Dr. Nirmal Parkash R.W 8 when examined in Court on 18th July 1961, said that without a fresh X-Ray of the injured (Bibi Rajinder Kaur) it was not possible for him to give any opinion regarding her at the Hospital in order to determine percent disability. The court gave time to the witness for examination of Bibi Rajinder Kaur. The witness was not examined in Court later on which weakened the defence case. The Tribunal from the above evidence came to the conclusion that Puran Chand was driving the truck while entering intersection of the two roads at a very high speed as was evident from the bursting of the brake hose pipe and the presence of skid marks extending over a distance of about 76 feet. He also observed that the Motor-cyclist could not have seen the truck on the road when he entered the crossing and that being so he in no way contributed to the occurrence. He found that if deceased had lived he would have paid his parents at the rate of Rs. 50/- per mensem for a period of about 16 years. He, therefore, allowed them compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,600/-. He also inferred that the chances of Bibi Rajinder Kaur getting married to a good boy had been diminished by the injury she suffered as a result of the accident and it would not be possible for her to enjoy her life as she would have done in the normal state of health. Taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances he allowed her Rs. 10,400/- as compensation.

16. The learned counsel for the appellants in appeals Nos. 94 and 95 of 1962 urged that as the accident took place at the crossing when Puran Chand was entering the crossing from the right side it was the duty of the Motor cyclist to give him way as is provided in rule 7 of the Tenth Schedule of the Motor-Vehicles Act. It may be stated here that although the appellants had mentioned in their grounds of appeal that the road on which the truck was going was the main road but the record of the case did not substantiate this point. The fact remains that none of the two road whichs intersected was a main road. It is also clear from the inspection note recorded by the Tribunal that the Motor-cyclist could have seen the truck coming towards the crossing from a distance of about 62 feets but all these circumstances do not go to show that the deceased was in any way responsible for the accident. The truck, as I have already mentioned, was going at a very fast speed and the motor-cyclist in all probability did not see it on the road when he entered the crossing. He, therefore, cannot be said to have in any way contravened the provisions of rule 7 of the Act. Puran Chand was not justified in going at such a speed in the area of Ambala Cantonment, undisputably a busy town and during busy hours. He unmistakably was rash, negligent and careless also in driving his truck at an uncontrollable speed which resulted in the accident. This finding of the Tribunal that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of Puran Chand is based on good evidence and is supported by cogent argument and the learned counsel for the appellants indeed could not successfully assail the same.

17. The next point for determination is whether the amount of compensation awarded to Bibi Rajinder Kaur and the parents of Harjit Singh are just and reasonable. The learned counsel for the appellants in appeal Nos. 94 and 95 of 1962 contended that the Tribunal while awarding Rs. 9600/- as compensation for the death of Harjit Singh should not have calculated it for a period of 16 years and further that while allowing the compensation in lump sum he should have made deductions from the sum arrived at by him for the loss caused by his death to his parents which had not been done. There can be no dispute about the fact, that the deceased, if living could have afforded to pay Rs. 50 or Rs. 60/- per mensem to his aged parents maintenance. He was a qualified draftsman and was said to have been earning about Rs. 200/- per mensem at the time of his death. He in fact had been employed in some business concern by Prem Nath Handa A.W 8 and the initial salary offered was Rs. 150/- per mensem just before the accident. These facts were not controverted before me. Mohan Singh A.W 11 father of the deceased had about four years to serve as Sub-Divisional Officer in the Irrigation Department of the Punjab Government. He is not a very old man. The Tribunal therefore, cannot be said to have committed any mistake in holding that Mohan Singh and his wife would live for 16 years from the date of his order. The deceased was only 21 years at the time of his death. The Tribunal must have taken into consideration while awarding Rs. 9600/- as compensation to the parents of the deceased that the amount was to be paid in lump sum and not by instalments. The principles followed by the Tribunal in assessing the compensation awarded to the parents of the deceased are sound and deducible from the evidence on the record. In these circumstances the appellate Court seldom interferes with the amount of damages assessed by the Tribunal. The appeal against Mohan Singh and others No. 95 of 1962 is without any merit.

18. The amount of compensation awarded to Bibi Rajinder Kaur has been assailed in both the appeals; one filed by her and the second by Messrs Harnam Singh Harbans Singh and others. The learned counsel for Bibi Rajinder Kaur urged that the Tribunal while awarding compensation to her relied on Liladhar Chaturbhuj…(Original Defendant), v. Harilal Jethabhai…(Original Plaintiff), .* . A.I.R 1937 Bombay 155. but failed to take into consideration that the present value of rupee is much less than what it was in the year 1937. According to him this was a relevant factor for the Tribunal to consider. In this connection he relied on the observation of Streatfeiled J. in Hart v. Griffiths-Jones . 1948 2 All E.R 729. as given below:

“I am urged by counsel for the plaintiff in whatever sum I award to bear in mind the difference between the value of the £ in 1946, and that in 1941 when Benham v. Gambling, was decided. I would not be justified in awarding as much as £200 which was the award of the House of Lords to a child living in rather special circumstances, but I think counsel for the plaintiff is right in saying that some addition must be made in respect of the alteration in the value of the £. I have come to the conclusion that although I should have awarded less than £ 200 had 1 been considering the like values, the depreciation of the £ justifies me in making an award under this head of £200.”

19. The Tribunal must have taken into consideration the present value of the rupee as compared to its value in the year 1937 when awarding Rs. 10,400/- to Bibi Rajinder Kaur appellant. I do not find any justification for interference in the finding of the Court below on this point. He took into account the fact that the girl was in Hospital for a month or so, spent about 5 months away from the school and that she lost the benefit during her girlhood of being able to run about and play games with other girls and the enjoyment of normal health. In the circumstances it is not possible to say that the sum which the Tribunal awarded was totally inadequate and more so when viewed in the light of the fact that her father is an Upper Division Clerk in the Postmaster General's Office drawing salary in the scale of Rs. 130-5-160-8-200-EB-8-2-56-EB-8-280-10-300. Similarly it cannot be said that the amount awarded to her is unreasonably high and need be reduced at this stage. She was 7 years old at the time of the accident and her father spent money on her medical treatment and during the period of her convalescence in order to restore her to her health. She has to be educated in order to enable her to pass her life usefully. The permanent limp which she had developed in her right leg has adversely affected the chances of her marriage with good boy. These factors are serious enough and could be compensated only by awarding a reasonably high sum as was done by the learned Tribunal. Further as held in The State of Punjab v. Smt. Guranwanti, it is primarily the duty of the trial court to determine the amount of damages and the appellate Courts generally do not interfere with the amount so awarded unless in determining this amount the trial court has failed to notice any principle on which such amount was to be fixed. The same view was held in State of Punjab v. Smt. Phool Kumari . 1962 PLR 92. and the Unique Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. . 1965 PLR short notes of cases 29.. The learned counsel for the appellants in both these appeals have not been able to make out any point to justify interference in the amount of compensation awarded to Bibi Rajinder Kaur.

20. The learned counsel for Bibi Rajinder Kaur appellant, however urged that direction of the Tribunal for depositing Rs. 10,400/- in the National Plans Savings Certificates in the name of Bibi Rajinder Kaur and that she would be entitled to realise the same on attaining majority was not in her best interest because money would be required for her proper education and up-keep till she attains majority. I agree with him. The directions given by the Tribunal in this respect are slightly strict. The guardian of Bibi Rajinder Kaur should have been allowed to withdraw the interest annually so that it could be spent on her education and up-keep. The order of the Tribunal in the claim application of Bibi Rajinder Kaur requires modification to this extent. These appeals otherwise on merits have no force.

21. For the reasons given above all the three appeals fail and are dismissed except that in the appeal preferred by Bibi Rajinder Kaur the order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. The parties however, are left to bear their own costs.

22. Appeal dismissed.