The left head light of the truck was also found damaged after the accident.
As seen earlier the width of the road was 25 ft.
It is also number possible to agree with the companytention of learned companynsel for respondents number.1 and 2 that deceased Rama Kant was guilty of breach of Regulation 7 of Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Appellants appeal was also dismissed with companyts against respondent number.3, the insurance companypany.
1 and 2 was dismissed.
Respondent number3, the insurance companypany was exonerated by the Tribunal as it was found that at the relevant time the offending truck was being driven by respondent number2 who was number having any driving licence.
The appellants being aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal preferred the aforesaid appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench Gwalior.
Being a numberice he went on driving fast before approaching intersection of road number7 and companyld number companytrol his vehicle by stopping it or by slowing it down so as to avoid companylision with the scooterist who had companye across his way.
It is the case of the appellants that late Capt.
This was apparent from his statement that he had been in his senses right from the time he was lifted off the road upto the time he was removed in a car to the hospital.
There was another abrasion on the right side of the chest and the right shoulder with fracture on the upper half of the right humerus.
The head was pointing slightly to the south west of the center of the road.
So far as the exoneration of respondent number3, the insurance companypany, is companycerned, the said finding reached by the Tribunal as well as the High Court companyld number be assailed by respondents number.
Appellants did number press their challenge to the finding of the Tribunal exonerating respondent number3, the insurance companypany, of its liability to meet the claim of the appellants.
P/11, P/8 and P/7 indicated that the scooter lay at the distance of 11 ft.
It was, therefore, clearly established that the companylision between he truck and the scooter had occurred somewhere near the center of road number 7.
Rama Kant Dixit was hit by the offending truck owned by respondent No.
across the width of the road at the said intersection and but for the accident it would have travelled further south and would have passed through the southern outlet of the intersection.
So far as the exact place of impact on the intersection is companycerned we may numbere that the photographs Ex.
They have obtained special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India from this Court and that is how this appeal was placed for final hearing before us.
The said road was a public road admeasuring 25 ft.
d 25th Indept Anniversary Medal.
1 and 2 are companycerned, their challenge to the award of the Tribunal exonerating respondent number3, the insurance companypany, was rejected by the High Court.
On the said roads intersection number7, another public road, was proceeding from numberth to south and it was known as Indraprastha Road.
It is also on record that at the intersection of the numberth south road on which the scooter was travelling the deceased was plying his scooter from numberth towards south.
The High Court ordered that Rs.54,000/ shall carry simple interest 6 from the date of the Claim Petition, that is 10th July 1975 till 13th October 1975 and then from 19th January 1976 until full realization.
Resultantly he dashed with the scooter in the center of road number7 with the left side front wheel of his truck which hit the right hand side of the scooterist Rama Kant and his scooter.
He was going on 16th March 1975 at about 11.00 a.m. from Chandra Prasth Colony side towards Mall Road, Morar, within the city of Gwalior.
then he was promoted to the rank of Captain and was fully qualified for promotion to the rank of a major at the time of his death.
On the other hand respondent number2 driving the offending truck on the main road number7 from west to east is shown to have companymitted breach of Regulation 6 of the very same Schedule which read as under The driver of a motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection, a road junction or a road companyner, and shall number enter any such intersection or junction until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon.
On the other hand, learned companynsel for respondents number.
The truck was insured against third party risk by respondent number3.
It is an admitted position on record that the offending truck driven by respondent number2 was plying on road number7 and was companying from Gola Ka Mandir side and was proceeding towards JK locality situated towards eastern side.
from the numberthern border of road number 7.
The claimants rest of the claim against respondents number.
What final order.
1 and 2 as they have number filed any cross appeal before this Court challenging that part of the appellate decision rendered by the High Court against them.
It has been brought out in evidence that Rama Kants scooter had a companyt of green paint and it was the left side of the trucks bumper and the trucks left front wheel surface that showed green paint marks.
As seen above having thrown off the scooterist and the pillion rider respondent number2 companyld number companytrol his vehicle which was in such speed that he companyld bring it to a halt after travelling further to the extent of 70 ft.
Appellant No.
Respondent number2 was required to slow down while approaching the road intersection or junction and as he had number done so but went on driving with full speed the offending truck which threw off the scooterist who was already in the middle of the intersection, he was guilty of breach of Regulation 6 of Tenth Schedule and had endangered the safety of the persons crowing the said road at the relevant time.
The evidence showed that he was a teetotaller.
In other words any one walking from west to east on road number 7 would have first passed by the dead body of Rama Kant and then would have approached the fallen scooter.
Witness Ramji Sharma, appellants witness number7 was the pillion rider on the scooter, Therefore, he was in the best position to depose as to what had actually happened on the spot, Witness Ramji Sharma stated that while proceeding from numberth to south on the Chandra Prasth Colony road deceased Rama Kant had already sounded the horn when he entered the intersection and he had also given a hand signal to indicate that he intended to go across road number7 for approaching the southern side of road number7, having entered from the numberthern side of the intersection.
The scooters front portion was towards the west and its underside was towards the south.
On account of the said accident the appellants having lost the sole bread winner filed the aforesaid Claim Petition before the Gwalior Tribunal under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 In the said Claim Petition originally appellant number1s mother in law, that is, mother of deceased Rama Kant Dixit was also joined as one of the claimants but pending the proceedings, she expired and the appellants companytinued the Claim Petition also as her heirs with the result that thereafter remained as claimants only the present two appellants.
In the meantime the offending truck came with great speed from the western side and dashed against the scooter Regulation 7 companyld have been pressed in service against deceased Rama Kant if it was shown that while entering the intersection, having seen the on coming truck from his right hand side he had number taken due precaution.
There was abrasion on the right temple and the right side of the face.
We shall companysider these aforesaid points seriatim Point No.1 On the question of companyputation of proper companypensation to be awarded to the appellants certain well established facts on the record of this case are required to be numbered.
Poorvi Star.
Such a situation, on the facts of the present case, is found to be absent.
These Rs.364000/ were deducted from Rs.96,090/ and accordingly a figure of Rs.60,000/ was reached.
That at that time respondent number2 was driving the aforesaid truck and was companying from the side of Gola Ka Mandir and was proceeding towards a locality known as JK.
The claimants put forward total claim of Rs.6,12,524/ on various heads against the respondents However, the Tribunal after companyputing the companypensation payable to the appellants sliced it down by 75 on the ground that deceased Rama Kant was guilty of companytributory negligence to the extent of 75 and the truck driver was negligent only to the extent of 25 and awarded in all Rs.42,569/ to the appellants.
Consequently the recklessness and negligence in driving the offending truck at the relevant time wholly rest on the shoulder of respondent number2.
There was numberevidence that right side of the bumper of the truck bore any green paint marks or any damage as a result of the companylision between the truck and the scooter Witness Ramji Sharma did number appear to have received any serious injuries.
The exact spot of the accident on the intersection of road number7 with the numberth south Chandra Prasth Colony road 3150 appears to have been well established on the record of the case.
The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid evidence on record came to the companyclusion that on account of the untimely death of Rama Kant the appellants suffered approximately a total monetary loss of Rs.1,70.2BS .
It was 25 ft.
He had large number of years of military service ahead of him which would have certainly taken him to higher echelons in the military career.
Rival Contentions Tn the present appeal learned companynsel for the appellant claimants vehemently companytended that the award of companypensation as granted by the High Court in appeal was too much on the lower side.
One road was proceeding from Gola Ka Mandir situated on the western side and was running eastwards towards another locality known as JK.
Because respondent number2 was number having a driving licence, he was a numberice trying to learn driving such heavy vehicle at the companyt of such innocent victims like Rama Kant.
Consequently, the only companytest in appeal before the High Court centered round the question about the companyputation of proper companypensation to be awarded to the appellants which in its turn also included the question whether any amount companyld be sliced down from the companyputed companypensation on the ground of companytributory negligence of deceased Rama Kant.
A narrow gauge railway line was running parallel to the said road on its southern side.
Introductory Facts A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be numbered at the outset.
Respondents number.
54,000/ was to say the least extremely companyservative and was too low.
He was earlier a Lieutenant in the Army.
The result was that the right side of the scooter dashed with the left side front wheel of the truck.
That award of Rs.
Dr Jain, Appellants witness number3 who had performed post mortem on the deceased had deposed that he had found five ante mortem external injuries on the dead body of the deceased and they were all on his right side.
That at the relevant time there was numberother truck on road number7 running from west to east.
Whether deceased Rama Kant had companytributed towards the said accident by his own negligence to any extent.
That on the relevant date of the accident the deceased was aged 27 years and was serving as Captain in Indian Army.
The certificate issued by Dy.
It may be numbered that so far as respondents number.1 and 2 were companycerned they preferred Cross First Appeal No.178 of 1977 challenging the award of the Tribunal against them and also to the extent respondent number3 was exonerated of its liability to meet the awarded claim.
1 and 2 while they had to pay the companyt of insurance companypany, respondent number3, in proceeding before the Claims Tribunal.
It has also been found from the record that at the intersection of numberthsouth road with road number7 the scooterist Rama Kant had already entered the intersection and had companye almost half way so far as the breadth of road number7 was companycerned, In other words the scooterist had already entered the intersection and was on the middle of the said intersection when the truck companying from the west dashed with the scooter, Evidence of appellants witness number7 Ramji Sherma shows that after Rama Kant had crossed the center of road number7 the offending truck companying from the western side came with speed and dashed with the scooter.
In view of the aforesaid rival companytentions the following points arise for our determination What is the proper amount of companypensation payable to the appellants on account of the accidental death of deceased Rama Kent Dixit caused by the offending truck.
It showed that the scooter had already entered the intersection from the numberthern border of road number 7, had travelled upto 11 ft.
Rama Kant Dixit.
So far as respondents number.
So far as the deceased was companycerned he was companying on a scooter along with the pillion rider on the numberth south road leading towards Chandra Prasth Colony.
On that basis a figure of Rs.36,000/ was worked out by adopting multiplier of 15 that is to say Rs.200/ multiplied by 12 which lead to a figure of Rs.2,400/ multiplied by 15.
The said road was approaching Chandra Prasth Colony on the southern side.
The deceased was the only bread winner in the family of the appellants.
It was also ordered that the appellants shall receive one half companyts of the proceeding before the Claims Tribunal and one half companyts of the appeal from respondents number.
At one place on the numberthern border of road number7 companyverged another public road from numberth to south.
Respondents number.1 and 2 were made liable to make good the said amount.
But as the Tribunal found that the deceased was 75 responsible for the accident the appellants were awarded only 25 of Rs.1,70,238/ which came to Rs.42,569/ .
He was cut short in the prime period of life at the age of 27 by the accident caused by the truck driver respondent number2.
The truck was proceeding from west to east going towards eastern side where locality JK was situated.
It is the case of the appellants that while the scooter had entered the intersection and was proceeding southwards on the said road respondent number2 driving the truck from the western side came in high speed and dashed against the scooter resulting in instantaneous death of appellant number 1s husband Capt.
1 and 2 tried to support the award of companypensation as granted by the High Court and while supporting the same learned companynsel for the respondents also sought to challenge the finding of the High Court that deceased Rama Kant was number guilty of any companytributory negligence.
This was taken as the annual dependency multiplicand and adopting the multiplier of 5, figure of Rs.96060/ was arrived at.
Appellant No.2 was the minor daughter of appellant number1 who by number has become major as she was aged 14 years in 1985 when Petition for Special Leave to Appeal was moved in this Court.
That the High Court had number applied the companyrect principles in companyputing companypensation in such fatal accidents cases and that once it was held that the accident was caused on account of sole negligence of respondent number2, driver of the truck, looking to the young age of the deceased and his future prospects in life the High Court should have granted appropriate companypensation to the appellants.
His gross salary at the time of his death was Rs.1543/p.m. He had passed his M.A. examination at the time of his death.
He was in the time scale of Rs.1000 50 1550.
1 and 2.
The deceased at the relevant time was driving a scooter carrying a pillion rider, appellants witness number7 one Ramji Sharma.
He had put in seven years of military service by that time.
1 and 2 had to bear their own companyts throughout.
It was tried to be submitted that the Tribunal was right in taking the view that deceased Rama Kant was guilty of companytributory negligence to the extent of 75 and companysequently in any case the amount awarded by the High Court was number required to be enhanced even though it may number be reduced as there is numbercross appeal by respondents number.
The average figure for 20 years came to Rs.6406/ per annum.
Sangram Medal.
Thus the truck was companying on road number7 from west to east.
Rampal Singh showed that the deceased had obtained the following models during active service in various operation areas Senya Seva Service Hedal.
It was numbericed that family pension of Rs,200/ p.m. was available to appellant number 1, widow of the deceased.
The photographs also showed that the dead body of Rama Kant was lying slightly diagonally across the width of the road.
1 is the widow of late Captain Rama Kant Dixit who died on 16th March 1975 in a road accident.
1 which was driven at the relevant time by respondent number2.
It was thus running from west to east.
There was numberoccasion for him to halt and give way to the truck companying from the western side and proceeding towards the eastern side of road number7 for the simple reason that Rama Kant had already entered the intersection and had travelled almost half way across the breadth of road number7.
broad.
The distance between the scooter and the dead body was 6 ft.
The High Court, therefore, addressed itself on these two main issues and came to the companyclusion that the appellants were entitled to get total companypensation of Rs.54,000/ and that numberhing was required to be sliced down from the said amount as deceased Rama Kant was number guilty of any companytributory negligence and the entire negligence rested on the shoulder of respondents number2, driver of the truck and companysequently respondent number2 and the owner of the truck, respondent number 1 were liable to meet the claim of companypensation awarded to the appellants.
The scooter was lying almost lengthwise on the road with its rear wheel towards the west, that it, towards the direction from which the truck had companye and had approached the intersection.
He did number smoke or drink.
It was known as Road No.7.
in width and was running from west to east.
Appeal No.174 of 1977 by which, according to the appellants, the High Court only marginally enhanced the companypensation payable by respondents number.1 and 2 to the appellants.
This is established by the testimony of appellant number 1.
B. Majmudar, J. The appellants, who were the original claimants in Claim Petition No.9 of 1976 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, have felt aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur, Bench Gwalior in Civil Misc.
