S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. In an accident between a scooter and the Haryana Roadways bus HRT 5240 Sudesh Kumar and the other person on the scooter, namely, Harinder Singh, sustained serious injuries as a result of which they later died. This happened on the Hissar-Delhi Road near the Veterinary Hospital, Rohtak, at about 8.30 p.m. on October 17, 1982. The claim for compensation put forth by the widow and minor son of Sudesh Kumar deceased has been declined by the Tribunal holding that the accident had been caused mainly due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter and not the bus. Herein lies the challenge in this award.
2. According to the claimants, Sudesh Kumar and Harinder Singh were going towards their residences on scooter on the correct side of the road, when the bus coming from the opposite direction and on account of rash and negligent driving came on its wrong side of the road and hit into the scooter as a result of which Sudesh Kumar and Harinder Singh sustained injuries and later died.
3. The bus driver and the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, on the other hand, attributed the entire blame of the accident to Sudesh Kumar and his companion Harinder Singh as was their version that when the bus reached near the Vaterinary Hospital, the scooter was coming from the opposite direction being driven in rash and negligent manner, seeing this the bus driver stopped the bus on the left side of the road to enable the scooter to pass but it came and hit into the front portion of the bus.
4. The case of the claimant-appellants rests upon the testimony of PW 6, Rattan Singh, father of Harinder Singh deceased, who claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence and PW 9, Surat Singh Rathi who deposed that he was coming towards the market when the bus overtook him and caused this accident.
5. It was the testimony of both PW 6 Rattan Singh and PW 9 Surat Singh Rathi that the scooter was on its correct side of the road and that the accident occurred when the bus being driven at a fast speed went on to the wrong side of the road and hit against it.
6. It was on the statement of PW 6 Rattan Singh that the first information report relating to this accident came to be recorded by the police, in pursuance of which a criminal case was registered against the bus driver and he was later arrested and challaned.
7. The respondents, on their part, examined the bus driver, RW 1, Rama Nand who deposed that on reaching near the Veterinary Hospital, he saw headlights of two vehicles coming from the opposite direction. Seeing them he slowed down his bus and rather on the advice of his passengers, considering the manner in which these vehicles were being driven, he stopped the bus on the left side of the road. The two vehicles coming from the opposite direction were a motor cycle and a scooter. The motor-cyclist all of a sudden swerved first to his left and then on to his right hand side, i.e., the side on which the bus was parked. The driver of the scooter thereupon also swerved towards his right and thereby struck against the front bumper of the bus. He immediately switched off the engine of his bus and got down. He saw the pillion rider of the scooter lying at a distance of 15 paces behind the scooter while its driver was lying beside the scooter. He also saw a motor cycle lying nearby and the person who was on it had run away.
8. The other witness examined by the respondents was RW 2 Ram Avtar who claims that he was travelling in the bus at the time of the accident. He came forth with a similar version as that given by the bus driver, RW 1 Rama Nand.
9. In appreciating the evidence on record with a view to determine the manner in which the accident occurred, it would be pertinent to bear in mind that admittedly at the place of accident, the road was as wide as 100 feet. This being so, there was ample space for both the vehicles to have passed without hitting into each other. There was no suggestion that state of the traffic on the road was such that the accident between the two became imminent
10. In a case like the present where an accident occurs between two vehicles approaching each other from opposite directions and there is ample space and opportunity for them to pass without harm to each other, it cannot but give rise to an assumption of negligence on the part of the drivers of the two vehicles concerned.
11. Turning now to the oral evidence led on this point, it will be seen that PW 6 Rattan Singh is clearly an interested witness being the father of Harinder Singh, the other person on the scooter who was killed in this accident. The statement of this witness no doubt is corroborated by the first information report lodged by him and also PW 9 Surat Singh Rathi, but by the very nature of the things, this statement deserves to be scrutinised with care.
12. The version of the accident as given by PW 6 Rattan Singh and PW 9 Surat Singh Rathi particularly to explain or account for the bus going on its wrong side does not make very convincing reading. Similarly, the statement of bus driver RW1 Rama Nand regarding the manner in which the accident occurred, sounds equally implausible. As regards RW 2 Ram Avtar, his testimony is clearly not worthy of reliance. Neither he nor the bus driver has cared to explain how the bus driver was able to cite him as a witness in this case on the basis of his being a passenger in the bus at the time of accident. There is no suggestion that Ram Avtar was previously known to him or that the bus driver had noted down his particulars with a view to examine him as a witness. What is more, there is no report by Ram Avtar either in the complaint book of the bus or in any other document. In other words, it was for the first time when he appeared in the court that he came forth to support the bus driver's version.
13. Taking an overall view, therefore, of the totality of the circumstances of the case, in the light of the evidence on record, there can be no escape from the conclusion that both the bus driver and the driver of the scooter must be held to be equally to blame for this accident. The finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence is modified accordingly.
14. Turning now to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, the evidence on record would show that Sudesh Kumar deceased was only about 32 years of age at the time of his death. He died leaving behind his young widow Urmila and his minor son who was only 1.1/2 years old at that time. Sudesh Kumar was employed as a Divisional Accountant in the P.W.D., Haryana and as per the testimony of PW 10 Ram Singh, Auditor in the said department, the total emoluments of the deceased were Rs. 1,080.80 per month.
15. The compensation payable in such cases has to be assessed keeping in view the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this court in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 (P&H;). One of the pertinent factors of material relevance here would undoubtedly be the fact that the claimant is a young widow and, therefore, the possibility of her remarriage has to be kept in view. It deserves mention in this behalf that according to the unrebutted statement of counsel at the Bar, she had not remarried till date and now it is almost 7 years ago that the accident had occurred. Keeping this and the other principles as laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh's case (supra) in view, in the context of the circumstances of the claimants and the deceased, the dependency deserves to be assessed at Rs. 9,000/- per annum with a multiplier of'16'. So computing the compensation payable to the claimants works out to Rs. 1,44,000/-. A deduction has, however, to be made from this amount for the contributory negligence of Sudesh Kumar deceased.
16. The claimants are accordingly hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 72,000/- as compensation which they shall be entitled to along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment of the amount awarded. Out of the amount awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- shall be payable to the minor son of the deceased and the balance to his widow. The amount payable to the minor claimant shall be paid to him in such manner as the Tribunal may deem to be in his best interest.
17.This appeal is consequently hereby accepted with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-.