S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The challenge in appeal here is to the award of Rs. 43,200/- as compensation to the widow and children of Jai Pal Singh deceased who was run and killed in an accident with the truck HRK-2261. This happened on June 10,1982 at about 5.30 P.M. near the Canal Rest House on Meerut road Karnal. Jai Pal Singh deceased was on a bicycle when the truck came from behind and ran him over.
2. The Tribunal held this to be a case of contributory negligence. The blame of the deceased being assessed at 25% while, that of the truck to be 75%.
3. According to the claimants, the deceased after attending to his duties at the Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Karnal, where he was employed, was proceeding towards the city when the truck HRK-2261 came from behind at a very fast speed and hit into bicycle as a result of which he fell down and was crushed under the wheels of the truck. The deceased died at the spot.
4. The version of the respondents-truck driver and the owner was that there was a stack of Bajri lying on the berm of the road. The bicycle of the deceased slipped on this heap on account of his negligent driving of the bicycle and as a consequence he struck against the rear portion of the truck and sustained injuries.
5. The case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of P.W. 5 Fateh Singh and P.W 6 Jagdish Singh, who deposed that they were following the deceased on their bicycles when the accident occurred. According to them the truck came from behind at very fast speed and the bicycle of the deceased got entangled with the bumper of the truck as a result of which the deceased fell down and was run over by the truck and killed at the spot.
6. It has also come on record that within a very short time of this accident, the police came to the spot and the first information report with regard to it was recorded on the statement of P. W. 6 Jagdish. It is pertinent to note that name of P. W. 5 Fateh Singh figures in this report. Next to note is the testimony of P. W. 8. Assistant Sub Inspector Inder Singh, who recorded the statement of P. W. 6 Jagdish on the basis of which first information report Exhibit PB came to be recorded. It was the testimony of this witness that when he reached the spot, he found both P.W. 6 Jagdish and P.W. 5 Fateh Singh present there
7. There is then the testimony of P.W. 7 Jiwan Kumar who took photographs of the scene of occurence.
8. The respondents on their part examined R.W. 2 Lila Ram driver of the truck, who deposed that he was driving his truck at a speed of only 2/30 km. P.H. on the Meerut road as their were several persons going on this road after the close of the Sugar Mills and the Workshop at the Canal Colony. The bicycle of the deceased suddenly slipped on the stones lying on the road side when he blow the horn and the cyclist struck against the side of his truck. He then stopped his vehicle and as several persons gathered there and proceeded towards him in a menacing manner, he ran away from the place of occurrence and then went and narrated the incident to the police.
9. It will be seen that there is no dispute here that the deceased was indeed rue over and killed by the offending truck HRK-2261 and further that this truck came from behind and then the deceased was run over by it. It would be recalled that according to the truck driver, the bicycle of the deceased slipped on account of a heap of Bajri lying on the road side. It is pertinent to note that there is no material on record to show that there was any such heap of Bajri lying on the road side. Further, seven according to the statement of the truck driver himself there were large number of persons on the road at the time of the accident. It has also come in evidence that the road in question was a narrow one being only 10/12 feet wide. These circumstances clearly rendered it imperative for the truck to be driven at a slow and controlable speed. It is apparent that this was not the case as had the truck been at a slow speed, with the brakes not being defective as found by the motor mechanic who tested the truck, it could have been brought to a halt immediately. This did not, however, happen. It is apparent, therefore, that the truck was being driven at a speed greater than that warranted by the situation on the road.
10. In apportioning some contributory negligence also upon the deceased, the Tribunal appears to have been carried away by the nature and extent of damage to the bicycle of the deceased inasmuch as P. W 8 ASI Inder Siangh has deposed that he did not notice any damage to the bicycle except that its handle had not twisted. The fact that this may have been the only damage to the bicycle clearly does not justify any such inference as to negative the statements of the two eye-witnesses PW-5 Fateh Singh and PW-6 Jagdish that the truck did indeed strike against the bicycle of the deceased. As is well known even a little impact with a bicycle if being driven at a slow speed can unbalance the cyclist and result in his falling. The Tribunal has proceeded to make out a case not set up by either of the parties by observing that the accident could have been possible only if the deceased had projected towards right and bad either fallen on that side or was in the process of falling on the road and he must have been struck by the bumper or any part of the truck which pushed him away from the cycle and the tyres of the truck over ran the body of the deceased. Such a conclusion cannot be sustained either by the circumstanes or the evidence on record.
11. Taking an over all view of the material on record, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the accident here had been caused entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence is accordingly so modified.
12. Next to consider is the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. It has come in evidence that Jai Pal Singh deceased was only 27 years of age at the time of his death. He died leaving behind his young 25 years old widow Kako Devi besides four minor children ranging in age from 2 to 8 years. A reading of the testimony of P. W. 3 Randhir Singh of the Karnal Co-oprative Sugar Mills, would show that Jai Pal Singh deceased was employed in the said Mill as Sanitary Fugal Fitter at a salary of Rs. 693/- per month and in addition he was also entitled to bonus at the rate of 8.3%.
13. It would appear that Jai Pal Singh deceased was living separately from his family in that R. W. 1 Gh. Lal Singh deposed that he had let out accommodation to the deceased at Rs. 120/- per month.
14. The compensation payable to the claimants in such cases has to be assessed in keeping with the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, (1979) 81 P. L. R. 1. Applying these principles to the circumstances and situation of the claimants and the deceased as they emerge from the evidence on record, the dependency of the claimants deserves to be assessed at Rs. 500/- per month with 16 being the suitable multiplier. So computed, the compensation payable to the claimants works out at Rs. 96,000/- which may be rounded about to Rs. one lac. The claimants are accordingly hereby awarded a sum of Rs. one lac as compensation which they shall be entitled along with intrest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the Application till the date of payment of the amount awarded Out of the amount so awarded, a sum of Rs; 10,000/- each shall be payable to the minor claimants and the balance to the widow of the deceased. The amounts payable to the minor claimants shall be paid to them in such manner as the Tribunal may deem to be in their best interest.
15. A plea was sought to be raised that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 50,000/-. No such limit is, however, mentioned in Exhibit R-2-the policy of insurance. In the column Limits of Liability' there a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is mentioned with regard to damage to the property caused by the use of motor vehicle but no such limitation finds mention against the column dealing with 'liability arising from death or bodily injury' arising out of use of a motor vehicle. It must accordingly be held that liability of the Insurance Company extends to the entire amount awarded. The respondents are thus, jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.
16. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is hereby accepted while the cross-objections filed by the respondents are dismissed. The claimants shall be entitled to their costs in this appeal. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 500/-.