V.A. Mohta, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of first Appeal Nos. 103/1979, 104/1979, 105/1979, 106/1979 and 107/1979 under the Motor Vehicles Act against the Award passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Amravati dismissing the claims for compensation arising out of an accident as a result of beadon collision between Ambassador Car No. MHX 5765 and the Motor Truck No. UTW-4241 at 11 am. on 161-1977 on Amravati-Morshi Road.
2. All the 6 occupants of the Car namely (1) Dinkar Bhaurao Hingmire (2) Laxman s/o Annaji Tamboli (3) Ku. Shanta d/o Annaji Tamboli (4) Smt. Sunandabai w/o Annaji Tamboli (5) Smt, Sulbha w/o Namdeo Tamboli and (6) Ramkrishna Sukdoji Khetal, the driver died. The males who were occupying the front side died instantaneously and the females afterwards, but all in an unconscious condition. The truck was owned by Kuldeepsingh Sardar singh Punjabi, (respondent No. 1) and driven in the regular course of employment either by Rajbahadur Singh Punjabi or Gurudayal Singh Punjabi (respondents 2 and 3 respectively). It was insured for a third party risk upto a limit of Rs. 50,000/- with M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 4). The Ambassador Car belonged to a partnership firm M/s. Atmaram Nagorao Tamboli and Sons (not impleaded as a party and was insured with M/s. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 5).
3. Certain undisputed positions are : The truck was going from Amravati towards Morshi side and the Car was going in the opposite direction from Morshi side towards Amravati. Amravati is to the south of Morshi. The two vehicles after collision halted at the west side of the road at a distance of approximately 57 ft. from the road. The front portion of the Ambassador Car was smashed and the front portion of the truck was damaged. There were no skid marks of the truck. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were and are ex parte. Respondent No. 1 did not file any statement before the Tribunal and the case was defended by respondent No. 4 the Insurance Company. Neither respondent No. 2 nor respondent No. 3 were even examined as witnesses. None of occupants of the Car could be examined since they were no more. They had even no opportunity to speak to anyone about the circumstances under which accident took place since all died in an unconscious state. The only eye-witness to the incident is PW Subhash Deshmukh, according to whom the accident took place due to rash driving of the truck which was going in high speed in a zigzag manner. He has been disbelieved interalia on the ground that since both vehicles stopped at left side of the direction towards which truck was going, the accident must have taken place as a result of negligent overtaking of the Car.
4. The first and the foremost question is whether in the whole background the finding of absence of negligence can be sustained. We do not think so. Since it is a case of a headon collision between the two vehicles, principle of Res ipsa loquitur [sic] will be attracted. But it is difficult to draw any inference merely on the basis of spot inspection note and photographs. It is pertinent to notice that no explanation is forthcoming as to why the respondents 2 and 3 who have first hand knowledge of the accident have not been examined. It is a clear cut case for drawing adverse inference against the respondents keeping in view Section 106 and 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. No occupant in the Car survived hence the claimants cannot be held to be guilty of suppression of evidence. The Tribunal has completely missed this most important aspect of the case. The inference gets strengthened by an undisputed position that there are no skid marks of the truck which means the brakes were not applied even though the truck left the road upto a distance of 57 ft. It is not the case of respondents in the pleadings that the Car-driver attempted overtaking and came to the wrong side in that attempt. PW 5 Subhash Deshmukh is shown in the charge sheet against the respondent No. 2 driver as one of the witnesses. Neither his presence on the scene has been doubted nor his independence. He seems to be in no way interested in the claimants. The Tribunal has proceeded in a cautious manner in appreciating his evidence since in his view, in cases of accidents, evidence by the eye-witnesses is given on the basis of their own imagination of what might have happened. While there is nothing wrong in being cautious in appreciating evidence there is no justification to proceed on the assumption that no eye-witness gives a correct picture of what he saw.
5. The version given by PW 5 Sub hash is broadly as under:
On the fateful day he was going from Amravati to Morshi on a Scooter accompanied by his brother who was riding on the pillion. The truck came in a zigzag manner from behind, overtook the scooter and after some distance stopped to have a talk with the driver of a vehicle coming from opposite direction. The scooter went ahead in the meanwhile. After some time the said truck again overtook the scooter in a zigzag manner and gave dash to the front light of one of the new Ambassador Cars, which were coming from the opposite direction in a Caravan. Behind the said new Ambassador the green car (which met with the accident) was coming. The truck went to the wrong side. The said Car went towards right side with a view to avoid accident. The truck gave a dash to the Car; there was a collision and both the vehicles went off the road towards west side of the road. There was no attempt to stop the truck. The driver and the other occupant of the truck ran away in the adjoining field. The witness along with his brother went upto the Car, front portion of which was completely damaged. The persons in the front seat were crushed; the driver was under the truck and in the back side two women were seen bent in backward position and one in a forward position. One lady was moaning ; the witness brought water from the adjoining field, poured it in the mouth of that lady, went to the Octroi post and gave information to the police as well as Irwin hospital and proceeded to Arvi where he was going for a condolence visit.
6. We are unable to see any substantial reason as to why the version given by this witness should be disbelieved in the whole background. We now proceed to examine some reasons which weighed with the Tribunal in discarding his testimony.
(a) The witness was unable to state as to which of the respondents 2 and 3, was actually driving.
In our view such expectation was wholly unrealistic. The witness did not know the drivers personally and had no reason to watch the face of the driver.
(b) If the truck was being driven in a zigzag manner and had left its correct side, the truck and the Car would not be found on the left side of the truck.
This assumption is not correct. On account of rash driving of the truck and leaving its side, the Car driver can be scared, can lose his control, can go towards wrong side in an anxiety to save the impact, there can be impact in the middle of the road and both vehicles can go with left side.
(c) There is no corroboration of the evidence of the dash between the Ambassador Car in the caravan and the truck.
No such evidence could be obtained if the caravan chooses not to stop. This is not an impossibility. It is pertinent to notice that this version of witness has not been challenged in the cross-examination.
(d) No brake marks of the scooter existed on the spot and hence version of the witness about comparative speed could not be accepted.
Apart from the fact that no one has examined the spot from that angle it is difficult to see how that is at all relevant.
(e) The Scooter must have overtaken the truck before the accident took place considering the estimate of comparative speed given by the witness and hence the witness could not see the accident.
Speeds and distances cannot be mathematically calculated in such cases. They are always approximate. It is difficult to assame like that when on the one side the truck was going and on the other side was passing a caravan of Ambassador Cars.
(f) The height of the truck is much more than the scooter and since the road was straight there was no possibility of scooter-driver noticing the accident even if the scooter was behind the truck.
Road is broad. It is not like a straight line. From a distance accident between a truck and car can certainly be noticed by a scootor driver following the truck at some distance.
(g) The witness did not stop and went away after pouring water in the mouth of the injured lady and reporting the matter to the police, even though visit to Morshi was not for urgent work.
One has to appreciate the psychology of an ordinary and not an ideal man. The witness did behave like an ordinary man and did perform his immediate duty.
(h) There was contradiction between his version in examination-in-chief and cross-examination about the exact spot where the first impact took place between the truck and the car.
To some extent this criticism is correct but such mistake can be genuine also. After all whole incident took place almost suddenly.
7. The Tribunal has dealt with three possibilities of the accident. They can best be noted in the words of the Tribunal (Paras 35 to 38 of the Award):
35. There are two possibilities in this case: firstly, the Octroi Naka was only 250 feet from the place of impact which means about 80 Metres, and this distance could be covered by a vehicle running at the speed of 60 Kilometers per hour within five seconds. Morshi Naka, though the evidence does not show, being on the National High Way, is a very busy Naka and, consequently, some trucks must always be stopping there. It is true that there is no evidence as regards this aspect of the case, but the Court can draw on its personal experience of these octroi-nakas, and if the inference of this Court is correct that there were certain vehicles stopping on the said way, any person coming from the north towards south will have to overtake those vehicles and go on the wrong side as the Naka itself is on the eastern side of the road. A car coming in speed from north to south would take a longer curve to come back to its side after overtaking the stationary vehicles and, as I have stated earlier, a vehicles at that speed covers nearly 55 feet per second. A car in high speed, before it could reach its correct side, would cover nearly 250 feet depending, of course, upon the number of vehicles standing at the Naka for being checked. This might be one of the causes for the Ambassador Car involved in this accident, coming to the right side.
36. The second inference that could be drawn legitimately in this case, would be that as per practice, the new cars in caravans have got governors fixed on their accelerators and, therefore, they cannot speed their vehicles beyond 25 to 30 miles per hour and, consequently they always drive in such a way that other users of the road could over-take them and for safety again come back to their right side and this is done by keeping sufficient space between each two vehicles. Admittedly, there were number of such cars. ahead of the driver Khetal of the Ambassador Car. He must have tried to over-take the same, but must not have succeeded in getting back to his side before the actual impact.
37. After perusal of the whole evidence as regards this aspect of the case, there can be no two conclusions that the accident must have happened due to the Ambassador Car, of its own accord, coming on the wrong side of the road and running in the path of the truck of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
38. There could be a third possibility also, but I would call it very remote as there is no evidence as regards this nor any contentions have been taken, namely, that at the relevant time, the right side suspension of the Ambassador Car may have broken and, therefore, guided by the centrifugal force, the car must have swerved automatically towards its right and in the path of the incoming truck of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
8. We are unable to agree with the above approach. The inferences are merely imaginary and not based on any material on record. Indeed what is observed is not even the case of the respondents. No such case is even put to the eyewitness in the cross-examination.
9. In our view the whole approach of the Tribunal to the case is vitiated. He has for no good reasons disbelieved the version of the accident, given by an independent eye-witness in the background of non- examination of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3--an aspect which surprisingly has been completely missed.
10. The other important aspect missed is the absence of skid marks of the truck. The theory that the truck-driver got no opportunity to apply brakes because of the scare due to the sudden overtaking by the Car and its coming to wrong side does not at all impress us. Considering the whole background the driver of the truck could see the caravan as well as the car in question and if he was alert and attentive and was driving the truck in normal speed there would be some effort to apply brakes even if there was an overtaking. Thus looked from any angle inference of negligent driving of the truck driver is inevitable. We, therefore, hold that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck.
11. The learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 4 contended that in this was a case of composite negligence and hence liability should be divided. We do not agree. No such is either made out in the pleadings or proved. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are not examined. Various theories are suggested to the witness only on the basis of imagination, but this theory is not even suggested.
12. We now proceed to examine the question of quantum of damages and the persons responsible for the payment appeal-wise.
13. First Appeal No. 103 of 1979.
This arises out of the claim petition No. 4 of 1977 filed by the legal representatives of deceased Dinkar Hingmire aged 36--widow Smt. Nirmala, aged 32 years., minor sons Gajanan, aged 12 years, Sanjay aged 10, Ajay aged 7 years Deceased Dinkar was a petition-writer at Hinganghat. He was also having agricultural land to the extent of about 15-16 acres. The Tribunal estimated the total damages at Rs. 50,000/- which includes a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as consortium. This is how the amount has been arrived at Rs. 300/- as the average monthly income of the deceased from the work of a petition-writer and Rs. 3500/- as the annual income from the agricultural field. Loss in agricultural income due to death of the deceased was Rs. 1200/- per annum i.e. Rs. 100/- per month and personal expenses of the deceased were Rs. 150/- p.m. Thus Rs. 250/- per month was the dependency After applying the multiple of 18, the amount comes to Rs. 54,000/- out of which 25% amount was deducted since amount would be paid in lump-sum which works out to Rs. 40,500/-. To this a sum of Rs. 5000/- as loss of consortium and Rs. 4500/- for other causes was added.
14. Shri Manohar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners is right when he challenges correctness of the calculation of the monthly income out of the work of a petition-writer only as Rs. 300/-. Tribunal held that average income of a petition-writer is Rs. 600/- per month but deducted Rs. 300/- on the ground that 50% of time of the deceased must have been spent in attending to agriculture.
15. We see no justification for deducting such a high percentage on that count. At least Rs. 400/- per month should have been estimated to be his income as a petition writer. Shri Samarth, the learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 4 challenged the award of Rs. 5,000/- by way of consortium on the ground that it is not specifically claimed. We see nothing wrong in granting damages under that head. Thus we estimate the dependency at Rs. 350/- and not at Rs. 250/- per month and so calculated damages can be estimated at Rs. 66,200/-.
16. First Appeal No. 104 of 1979.
This arises out of claim petition No. 1 of 1977 filed by Annaji Tamboli, the father of deceased, Ku. Shanta aged 24 years. Only a sum of Rs. 1000/- has been calculated as damages for the loss of a daughter. We see no justification whatsoever for grant of such meagre amount. Shanta was aged 24 years and was a graduate. The family to which she belongs appears to be higher middle-class. Father Annaji is the partner of the firm owning a Car. In the whole background there is no justification for awarding less than Rs. 15,000/- as damages.
17. First Appeal No. 105 of 1979.
This appeal arises out of claim petition No. 5 of 1977 filed by Annaji Tamboli for the loss of his minor son Laxman, aged 15 years. who was taking education in the Xth standard. We have already held that he belonged to higher middle class family. He was an intelligent boy as deposed to by the Head Master of the school and in the whole background we see no justification for awarding less than Rs. 15000/- as damages even in this case.
18. First Appeal No. 106 of 1979.
This appeal arises out of claim petition No. 3 of 1977 for the loss of deceased Sulabha, aged 30, filed by her husband Namdeo, her two sons Vivek, Pravin and minor daughters Nilima and Archana. The damages are estimated at Rs. 20,000/- and calculated as under:
Rs. 11,500/- Loss of love for children;
Rs. 8,500/- Consortium to be husband.
19. Shri Manohar, contended that the Tribunal has erred is not giving any compensation for household work which the deceased must be performing as a housewife. It seems to us that the contention is correct. If the loss is calculated even at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month and multiple of 20 is applied the amount comes to Rs. 24,000/-. From that 25% has to be deducted because of the lump-sum payment, thus the damages on that account can be estimated at Rs. 18,000/-. Thus the total damages have to be calculated at Rs. 38,000/-.
20. First Appeal No. 107 of 1979.
This appeal arises out of claim petition No. 2 of 1977 arising out of the death of Sunanda w/o Annaji Tamboli aged 45 years, filed by her husband Annaji and sons and daughters. A sum of Rs. 13000/- is awarded as compensation for loss of love to children and a sum of Rs. 5000/- as consortium to the husband (total Rs. 10,000/-). In this case also nothing is calculated as loss on account of household duties. In this case also we calculate the loss under that head at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month and applying the multiple of 16 the amount comes to Rs. 19,200/-= out of which 25% will have to be deducted because of lump-sum payment and this figure comes to Rs. 14,400/-. Thus total loss will have to be estimated at Rs. 32,400/-.
21. Conclusion:
All appeals are allowed. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are ordered to pay the following compensation to the claimants/appellants jointly and severally:
First Appeal No. 103/1979 ... Rs. 66,200/-
' ' ' 104/1979 ... Rs. 15,000/-
' ' ' 105/1979 ... Rs. 15,000/-
' ' ' 106/1979 ... Rs. 38,000/-
' ' ' 107/1979 ... Rs. 32,400/-
The above amount shall carry interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the date of application till realization. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 shall pay also the costs of the appeals. In first Appeal No. 103 of 1979 the liability of respondent No. 4 is restricted to Rs. 50,000/-.