Judgment:
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1.This judgment of mine will dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 598, 599, 600 and 601 of 1986, which have arisen out of common award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, dated March 6, 1986.
2. The judgment is being recorded in F.A.O. No. 598 of 1986.
3. In an accident between the Haryana Roadways Bus No. HRL-5549 and Car No. DLI-7752 on December 14 1978, Rattan Ram Driver of the car was killed while three other persons travelling in it namely G.S. Saharia, his wife Asha Saharia and his brother I.S. Saharia sustained injuries. Separate claim petitions Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act were filed by the widow and minor children of Rattan Ram deceased and also by G.S. Saharia, Asha Saharia and I.S. Saharia. The widow and children of Rattan Ram in F.A.O. No. 601 of 1986, had claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Smt. Asha Saharia had also claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- while G.S. Saharia and I.S. Saharia made a prayer for the grant of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, however did not award any amount to any of the claimants on the ground that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. HRL-5549 by its driver. This finding was arrived at by the Tribunal on the basis of writing Exhibit R-1 and Exhibit R-2 given by Shri G.S. Saharia and the car driver to the effect that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.
4. The finding of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has been challenged on the ground that writings Exhibits R1 and R2 have not been properly appreciated with reference to the injuries that had been sustained by car driver and Shri G.S. Saharia. It was also urged that Rattan Ram, driver of the car had died within two days of the accident.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants have urged that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it can reasonably be inferred that it is a case of contributory negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident.
6. Shri J.C. Sethi, Additional Advocate General, Haryana has supported the finding of the Tribunal on the ground that the driver of the ill fated car had in his writing admitted that the driver of the bus was not at fault. He contends that no interference regarding the manner of accident is called for and the claimants are not entitled to any compensation.
7. I have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.
8. It has come in the statements of G.S. Saharia (P.W.1), I.S. Saharia (P.W. 2) and Smt. Asha Saharia (P.W.3) that it was drizzling slightly and the car in which they were travelling was moving on its proper side at a reasonable speed. A bullock-cart loaded with sugar cane was ahead of the car at a distance of 15/16 meters. On seeing the bullock cart, the driver of car further slowed down the car. A Haryana Roadways bus came from the opposite side and struck against the right side to the car. These witnesses have further stated that the car driver applied brakes. These witnesses have denied that the car had come in the centre of the road. Shri N.K. Jain, Yamuna Grameen Bank, Agra appeared as P.W. 6 and stated that he was proceeding to Karnal in the bus. He has claimed that he was sitting on the front side of the bus and saw the accident. According to him a cart loaded with sugarcane was going ahead followed by a car which was going at a slow speed. According to him, the bus came with a high speed and struck against the car on its driver side and turned turtle. According to him, the injured were taken to the hospital where they were admitted. He also stated that one of the children had supplied him the telephone number of the claimants and he had told his name and other particulars to an old man sitting in the bus. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had seen the car two or three minutes before the accident and at that time the car and the bus were at some distance. It has also come in his statement that it was drizzling at that time which had started 15/20 minutes prior to it. He denied that the road had gone slippery. He also denied that any of the. occupants of the car was his friend or relation.
9. This evidence was rebutted by Niamat Ali, respondent-driver of the bus who had stated that the car came on the right hand side from behind of a bullockcar. He and the car driver applied brakes. The car driver could not control the car as the brakes did not work. It took a turn and struck against the bus. It has also come in the statement of Niamat Ali that the bus fell in the pits on the left side of the road.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the statements of the injured and that of Shri N.K. Jain, who is an independent witness, that the bus came at a high speed and struck against the car, should have been given credence by the Tribunal and should not have been discarded. Keeping in view all the aspects of this case, it is held that the accident was caused due to negligence of both the drivers. Had the driver of the bus applied brakes, the accident would not have taken place. Similarly, had the driver of the car taken the car to its extreme left side, the accident would have been averted. In this view of this matter fault lies with both the drivers. The driver of car is held liable to the extent of 3/4th while the driver of the bus to the extent of 1/4th.
11. As a result of foregoing discussion, all the appeals are allowed to the extent that the claimants will be entitled to 1/4th of the compensation amount as determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
12. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has held the claimants entitled to the following compensation:
G.S. Saharia Rs. 50,000/-I.S. Saharia Rs. 40,000/-Smt. Asha Saharia Rs. 25,000/-Leela Wati widow Gopal, Rs. 48,000/-.Om Parkash Ramesh Minorsons and Manju alias Madhuminor daughter ofShri Rattan Ram
13. Since Niamat Ali driver of the bus in question has been held to be negligent to the extent of 1/4th, the claimants will be entitled to recover only 1/4th of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The amount falling to the shares of minors will be deposited in some Nationalised Bank till the time they attain majority.
14. The claimants will also be entitled to the interest at the rates of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation to which they are entitled from the date of filing the claim petitions, till payment.
15. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.