Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

First Appeal From Order No. 169 of 1977

Judges

S.S Sodhi, J.

Acts

Regulation 6 as also Regulation 7 of the 10th Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — S.S. Sodhi, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

On 27 August 1973 at about 11:30 A.M., there was an accident at a road crossing in the Industrial Area, Chandigarh, between a motor-cycle driven by Jaswant Singh and a truck. Jaswant Singh sustained serious injuries and later died. The Tribunal found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of Piara Singh, the truck driver, and awarded compensation of Rs. 44,000 to the claimant family (the widow and five minor children).

Two appeals were before the Court: one by the truck driver, the truck owner and the insurer challenging their liability for payment of compensation; and the other by the claimants seeking enhanced compensation. The present opinion disposes of those appeals.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the truck driver (and owner/insurer) was primarily negligent for the accident and, if not, what proportion of contributory negligence should be apportioned to the deceased motor-cyclist.
Whether precedents relied upon by the parties (in particular intersection cases) are applicable to the facts here, given the applicability of both Regulation 6 and Regulation 7 of the 10th Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.
If liability is established, what is the appropriate quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimants (including the annual loss figure, multiplier and deductions for contributory negligence), and its distribution among the widow and minor children.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents (Truck driver / Owner / Insurance Company) — Principal Arguments

The truck driver (through Mr. G.S. Giani) contended that both drivers must be held equally responsible and that contributory negligence on the part of the deceased should be assessed at 50%.
To support equal apportionment, the respondents relied on two judgments of this Court (The Tourist Co-operative Transport Society, Ltd. Ambala Cantt. v. Dr. Om Parkash, 1973 75 PLR 486, and O.P. Vijh v. State of Punjab, 1974 A.C.J. 467) in which drivers at road intersections were held equally liable.
In their factual version, respondents' witnesses asserted that the deceased jumped off the motor-cycle or that the motor-cycle hit a pavement and neither motor-cycle nor deceased collided with the truck (i.e., a narrative minimizing collision/blame on the truck).

Claimants — Principal Arguments

The claimants maintained that the motor-cycle had entered the crossing before the truck and had almost crossed it when the truck struck it, and therefore the truck driver was primarily to blame.
Mr. Hemant Kumar for the claimants relied on the decision in Jaswant Kaur v. Ratti Ram (1971 A.C.J. 31), where the driver of a vehicle coming from the right was wholly absolved; however, the Court noted the factual differences (offending vehicle without brakes) limiting its applicability.
The claimants sought an enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, placing before evidence of the deceased's age, family dependants, business income, and rental income.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
The Tourist Co-operative Transport Society, Ltd. Ambala Cantt. v. Dr. Om Parkash (1973 75 PLR 486)	Intersection case where drivers of two vehicles were held to be equally liable (apportionment of blame).	The Court distinguished this case because it dealt only with Regulation 6; Regulation 7 (giving way to traffic from the right or on a main road) did not arise in that decision and therefore it was not treated as directly controlling here.
O.P. Vijh v. State of Punjab (1974 A.C.J. 467)	Another intersection case in which equal liability was imposed on drivers; relied upon for equal apportionment.	Distinguished for the same reason as the Tourist case: it too concerned Regulation 6 only and did not consider Regulation 7, so it was not treated as binding for apportionment here.
Jaswant Kaur v. Ratti Ram (1971 A.C.J. 31)	Held that the driver coming from the right was wholly absolved where the offending vehicle was found to have no brakes and yet had come onto the crossing at high speed.	The Court noted the factual difference (lack of brakes) and therefore did not regard it as a binding precedent that would absolve the driver here.
Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur (1979 81 PLR 1)	Principles for assessment of compensation in fatal accident cases (used to compute loss, choice of multiplier, and allowances).	The Court applied the compensation principles stated by the Full Bench in this case to compute annual loss (Rs. 7,500), the appropriate multiplier (16), and to derive the gross and net award after deduction for contributory negligence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court considered the factual evidence, witness credibility, statutory/regulatory duties at intersections, and the precedents relied upon by the parties.

Evidence and credibility:

The claimants produced three eyewitnesses (P.W.4 Shamsher Singh, P.W.5 Pritam Singh, and P.W.7 Ram Singh) who consistently testified that the truck approached the crossing at high speed and struck the motor-cycle which had almost crossed; the motor-cycle was dragged about 20 yards.
The respondents' witnesses (R.W.1 Piara Singh and R.W.3 Mehnga Singh) gave versions that the deceased jumped off the motor-cycle or that the motor-cycle hit a pavement and did not collide with the truck. The Court found these accounts falsified by photographic evidence taken soon after the accident showing dragging marks and the motor-cycle lying between the front wheels of the truck.
Contradictions in respondents' witness statements about who was the truck driver and the owner’s statement about Piara Singh's involvement undermined the respondents' account. The fact that Piara Singh was convicted by the Criminal Court in relation to this same accident was noted as a relevant factor.
The Court found the claimant witnesses to be present naturally at the scene, to have given consistent accounts without contradictions, and to be credible.

Legal duties (Regulations 6 and 7, 10th Schedule, Motor Vehicles Act):

Regulation 6 imposes a duty on drivers approaching an intersection to slow down and to enter only when they can do so without endangering safety (including the driver and others).
Regulation 7 requires that, when entering an intersection, a driver must give way to traffic on a main road or, where no main road is designated, give way to traffic approaching from the driver's right.
Given these duties, both the truck driver and the motor-cyclist were under obligations to slow down and ensure safety before entering the crossing. The truck driver additionally had the duty to give way to traffic from his right (the motor-cycle).

Application of duty to facts and apportionment:

The Court concluded both vehicles came onto the crossing in disregard of Regulation 6. The motor-cyclist had an opportunity to observe the truck and its speed and to allow it to pass; nevertheless both vehicles entered the crossing unsafely.
However, on balance of evidence (credibility of witnesses, photographic evidence of dragging, and contradictions in respondents' version), the truck driver bore the greater share of blame: the truck did not slow down and struck the motor-cycle which had come into the crossing earlier from the truck's right.
The Court considered the authorities relied upon by respondents that had found equal liability, but distinguished them because they addressed Regulation 6 only. Since Regulation 7 (priority to right-hand traffic) was in issue here, those authorities were not treated as controlling.
Considering the totality of circumstances, the Court fixed contributory negligence at 33% for the deceased motor-cyclist and 67% for the truck driver, modifying the Tribunal's finding on negligence accordingly.

Compensation assessment:

The deceased was 33 years old, leaving a widow (32) and five minor children. He ran a business manufacturing rolling shutters and fabricating steel articles, owned an industrial plot (part rented for about Rs. 5,500 per year), and had income-tax assessed incomes: Rs. 11,750 (1970–71), Rs. 14,988 (1972–73), and Rs. 14,950 (1974–75).
Applying the Full Bench principles in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, the Court computed the loss to claimants at Rs. 7,500 per annum. The appropriate multiplier selected was 16, yielding a gross sum of Rs. 1,20,000.
After deducting 33% for the deceased's contributory negligence, the net award to claimants was fixed at Rs. 80,000.
The award carries interest at 12% per annum from the date of the application to the date of payment. Distribution: Rs. 30,000 to the widow Smt. Gian Kaur; the balance to be paid to the five children in equal shares, with payments to minor children to be made in a manner the Tribunal deems in their best interest.

Holding and Implications

Core Rulings:

The appeal filed by the claimants for enhanced compensation is allowed.
The appeal filed by the truck driver, truck owner and insurance company challenging their liability is dismissed.
The Court modified the Tribunal's finding on negligence to apportion contributory negligence as 33% to the deceased motor-cyclist and 67% to the truck driver.
The claimants are awarded Rs. 80,000 (after deduction for contributory negligence) with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the application until payment; distribution as ordered (Rs. 30,000 to the widow, balance equally to five children, minor children's shares to be paid as Tribunal deems fit). Counsel's fee Rs. 500. The claimants' appeal is allowed with costs; the other appeal is dismissed.

Implications:

The direct effect is a modification of the Tribunal's decision to increase compensation to the claimants and an apportionment of blame (67% truck driver / 33% deceased). The Court distinguished prior intersection cases that had imposed equal liability on drivers because those cases considered Regulation 6 only; here both Regulation 6 and Regulation 7 were applicable. The opinion does not assert that it creates any new binding precedent beyond its application to the facts and statutory duties discussed.

Result in brief: Claimants' appeal accepted; other appeal dismissed; award of Rs. 80,000 with interest and directions for distribution.

Show full summary ...

Piara Singh And Others v. Gian Kaur And Others

S.S Sodhi, J.:— On August 27, 1973 at about 11.30 A.M, there was an accident between a motor cycle and a truck at a crossing in the Industrial Area, Chandigarh. Jaswant Singh, the driver of the motor-cycle sustained serious injuries as a result of which he later died.

2. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of Piara Singh the truck driver. The claimants, who are the widow and five minor children of the deceased, were awarded a sum of Rs. 44,000/- as compensation.

3. This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the driver and owner of the truck involved in the accident and the Insurance Company with which the truck was insured, seeking to challenge thereby their liability for payment of compensation in this case, as also the other appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhanced compensation.

4. As has been mentioned above, the accident here took place at a crossing. It has come in evidence that both the roads thereof were of the same width with neither of them having been designated as a main road. The deceased had come on to the crossing from the right hand side of the truck driver. It was the case of the claimants that the motor-cycle had come on to the crossing before the truck had reached there and in fact, had almost crossed it when the truck came and hit into it. The respondent-truck driver, on the other hand blamed the accident upon the negligence of the deceased, but it is pertinent to note that in the written statement he came-forth with no counter version.

5. The claimants had examined three witnesses to depose to this accident. They being P.W 4, Shamsher Singh, P.W 5 Pritam Singh and P.W 7 Ram Singh, the brother of Jaswant Singh, deceased. It was their consistant testimony that the truck came on to this crossing at a very fast speed and hit into the motor-cycle when it had almost crossed it. On account of the fast speed of the truck the motor-cycle had been dragged to cover 20 yards in the accident.

6. The respondents, on the other hand, examined R.W 1 Piara Singh and R.W 3 Mehnga Singh to depose to their version of the accident, which was to the effect that seeing the truck, the deceased jumped off the motor-cycle and it was as a result of the injuries suffered by him by falling down in this manner, that he died. At regards the motor-cycle, R.W 3 Mehnga Singh deposed that it hit the payment and fell. His statement, in fact, was that neither the motor-cycle nor the deceased collided with the truck. R.W 1. Piara Singh on the other hand stated that the motor-cycle had only slightly hit the truck. This testimony stands falsified, not only by the witnesses examined by the claimants, but also the photographs taken soon after the accident. There are clear marks of dragging of the motor-cycle by the truck and, in fact, motor cycle is seen lying between the front two wheels of the truck.

7. Further, it deserves note that this version of R.W 1 Piara Singh and R.W 3 Mehnga Singh that the deceased had jumped off the motor-cycle was not mentioned in the written statement nor was it put to P.W 4 Shamsher Singh and P.W 5 Pritam Singh. P.W 7 Ram Singh was the only witness to whom such a suggestion was made and he denied it.

8. A reading of the testimony of R.W 1 Piara Singh and R.W 3 Mehnga Singh would show that an attempt was made to put forth Mehnga Singh as the driver of the truck. Contradictory evidence came forth on this aspect of the matter from both Piara Singh and Mehnga Singh and also R.W 2 Charan Singh, the owner of the truck. While Piara Singh stated that he had been working as a driver on this truck for the last 7 to 8 years. Mehnga Singh deposed that he was the only driver for the last 5 to 6 years. R.W 2 Charan Singh went to the extent stating that Piara Singh was not concerned with them at all. A relevant factor here is that Piara Singh stands convicted by the Criminal Court in respect of this very accident.

9. The presece of P.W 4 Shamsher Singh and P.W 5 Pritam Singh was sought to be doubled on the ground that they were witnesses, whom the deceased knew. This fact by itself cannot be taken to create any doubt in their testimony. Their presence at the spot at the time of the accident was duly explained by them which renders their being there probable and natural. Both the witnesses have given a consistant account of the occurrence with no contradictions or discrepancies, to create any doubt therein. There can thus be no manner of doubt that the accident in this case took place as deposed to by them.

10. In a case like the present where the accident occur at a road inter-section with one of the vehicles involved therein coming on to it from the right side of the other, both Regulation 6 as also Regulation 7 of the 10th Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act stand attracted thereto. A duty is cast upon the driver of a motor vehicle, by the provisions of Regulation 6, to slow down while approaching a road inter-section and to enter it only in the knowledge that he can do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon. Such persons include the driver of the vehicle himself and any other person who may be travelling in his vehicle. Regulation 7 casts the further duty upon such driver that on entering the inter-section to give way to traffic proceeding on the road, if any, designated as a main road and in other cases to that approaching the inter-section from his right hand side. In other words, both the driver of the truck as also the motor-cycle were under an obligation to slow down on approaching the crossing and to proceed to enter it only if they could do so withsafety to themselves and others there As for the truck driver, there was the further duty cast upon him to give right of way to the motor-cycle, as it was coming from his right. It is apparent that both the track and the motor-cycle came on to the crossing in disregard of what Regulation 6 has prescribed. If the deceased had exercised due care and caution before entering the crossing, he would undoubtedly have noticed not only the truck but also the speed thereof and manner in which it was being driven. The sheer instinct for self preservation would have impelled him to allow the truck to pass before seeking to go through the crossing. In the case of the truck, there can be no manner of doubt that there was no slowing down while approaching the crossing nor was any regard shown to the safety of others. It came on to the crossing at a fast speed and hit into the motor-cycle which had undoubtedly come into the crossing earlier and that too from its right. The requirements of not only Regulation 6, but those of Regulation 7 too were thus observed by the truck driver wholly in their breach. In this situation, there is no escape from the conclusion that both the deceased motor-cyclist as also the truck driver contributed to the accident that occured.

11. The question arises as to the extent of the blame to be fastened upon the deceased motor-cyclist and on the truck driver for this accident. The contention of Mr. G.S Giani, counsel for the truck driver was that both must be held to be equally responsible. In other words, the contributory negligence of the deceased must be held to be to the extent of 50 per cent. He sought to rely here on two judgments of this Court in The Tourist Co-operative Transport Society, Ltd. Ambala Cantt. v. Dr. Om Parkash . 1973 75 PLR 486. and O.P Vijh. Executive Engineer v. State of Punjab . 1974 A.C.J 467.. In both these cases the drivers of the two vehicles involved in the accident which occurred at a road intersection were held to be equally liable. It is pertinent to note, however, that both these cases dealt with the provisions of Regulation 6 only. The provisions of Regulation 7 did not arise for consideration nor was any argument addressed based upon it. These cases are thus, distinguishable on this ground.

12. Mr. Hemant Kumar, counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, sought to rely upon Jaswant Kaur v. Ratti Ram . 1971 A.C.J 31., where the driver of the vehicle which came on to the crossing from the right war wholly absolved from blame for the accident. This case too does not provide any binding precedent here, as the offending vehicle was found to have no brakes and despite this it had come on to the crossing at a fast speed.

13. Seen in the totality of the circumstances of this case, in the light of the matters discussed above, the contributory negligence of the deceased deserves to be taken to be 33 per cent and that of the respondent-truck driver at 67 per cent. The finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence is consequently modified accordingly.

14. Turning to the matter relating to the amount payable as compensation, it Has come in evidence that Jaswant Singh, deceased, was only 33 years of age at the time of his death. He died leaving behind his widow Smt. Gian Kaur, aged 32 years and five minor children. The deceased was running his own business of manufacture of rolling shutters and fabrication of steel articles. He had an industrial plot where he carried on this business. A part of this plot had been rented out. The rental income from this being about Rs. 5,500/- per year. Besides this, there is evidence from the Income-Tax Department to show that his income during the year 1970–1971 was Rs. 11,750/- (Exhibit P-14), in 1972–1973 it was Rs. 14,988/- (Exhibit P-15) and in 1974–1975 it was Rs. 14,950/- (Exhibit P-17).

15. The principles on which, compensation has to be assessed in such a case are those as laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur . 1979 81 PLR 1.. Keeping in view the relevant factors set out therein, the loss to the claimants must be computed at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per annum. This figure has been arrived at after making due allowance of the rental income that the claimants continue to get even after the death of the deceased as also the amount that the deceased would have spent upon himself during his life time 16 would clearly be the appropriate multiplier here and on this basis the compensation payable to the claimants would work out to Rs. 1,20,000/-. After making a deduction on account of the contributory negligence of the deceased the claimants must be held entitled to and are hereby awarded to a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. The claimants shall be entitled to the amount awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- shall be paid to the widow Smt. Gian Kaur and the balance shall be paid to her five children in equal shares. The amounts payable to the minor children shall be paid to them in such manner as the Tribunal may deem to be in their best interest.

16. In the result the appeal filed by the claimants is accepted with costs; while the other appeal is hereby dismissed. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/- (one set only).

R.M.S

Appeal dismissed.

Piara Singh And Others v. Gian Kaur And Others

Judgment Summary — S.S. Sodhi, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents (Truck driver / Owner / Insurance Company) — Principal Arguments

Claimants — Principal Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Piara Singh And Others v. Gian Kaur And Others

Comments