Skip to content


Gurdip Singh and anr. Vs. Parbati and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1(1984)ACC468
AppellantGurdip Singh and anr.
RespondentParbati and ors.
Cases ReferredLachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur
Excerpt:
.....down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law - the evidence on record clearly establishes that she turned to the right to go into the military hospital, when the truck came from behind and hit into her. it is apparent that before turning to the right she did not care to see whether there was any traffic coming from behind or it was otherwise safe for her to do so, though it has come in evidence that she gave a signal before turning to the right. it has been stated at the bar that the claimant is still alive and in good health......as has been mentioned above, the amount awarded as compensation to parbati, the mother of bimla rani deceased was rs. 20,000/-3. there can be no manner of doubt that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in this accident. the evidence on record clearly establishes that she turned to the right to go into the military hospital, when the truck came from behind and hit into her. it is apparent that before turning to the right she did not care to see whether there was any traffic coming from behind or it was otherwise safe for her to do so, though it has come in evidence that she gave a signal before turning to the right. on the other hand, though the evidence led shows that the truck driver tried to avoid the accident, but it has at the same time also to be taken.....
Judgment:

S.S. Sodhi, J.

1. The challenge here is to the award of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the mother Parbati whose daughter Bimla Rani was killed, when she was involved in an accident with a truck on December 31, 1976. This happened near the Military Hospital at Abohar. Bimla Rani was proceeding towards the Military Hospital and had turned to go into it when a truck came from behind and hit into her. She was immediately removed to the hospital, but died soon thereafter.

2. It was the finding of the Tribunal that this was a case of contributory negligence and that the deceased Bimla Rani was more to blame for the accident than the truck driver. The negligence was consequently apportioned at 75 percent as that of Bimla Rani 25 per cent of the truck driver. As has been mentioned above, the amount awarded as compensation to Parbati, the mother of Bimla Rani deceased was Rs. 20,000/-

3. There can be no manner of doubt that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in this accident. The evidence on record clearly establishes that she turned to the right to go into the Military Hospital, when the truck came from behind and hit into her. It is apparent that before turning to the right she did not care to see whether there was any traffic coming from behind or it was otherwise safe for her to do so, though it has come in evidence that she gave a signal before turning to the right. On the other hand, though the evidence led shows that the truck driver tried to avoid the accident, but it has at the same time also to be taken note of that the truck was coming at a fast speed and no horn was blown by the truck driver. The circumstances being as discussed above, it would be fair and just to take the contributory negligence of both deceased and the truck-driver to be 50 percent.

4. Bimla Rani deceased was only about 28 years of age at the time of her death. She was employed as a nurse at the hospital at a salary of Rs. 330/-per month. She was unmarried. The claimant, her mother Parbati, was 70 years of age at that time. It was her statement that she was wholly dependant upon the deceased. It has been stated at the Bar that the claimant is still alive and in good health. This is an important factor to be borne in mind in assessing the compensation payable to the claimant in this case. As has now been settled by Full Bench of this Court, compensation payable to claimants must be in keeping with the relevant factors as spelt out in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 PLR 1. Considering the circumstances of the claimant and the deceased and the fact that the claimant was wholly dependant upon the deceased and that it was the deceased on whose income the house-hold ran, it would be reasonable to take the loss at Rs. 200/- per month. Ten deserves to be taken as the appropriate multiplier here, bearing in mind the fact that the claimant even after 8 years of the accident is still alive. On this basis after making allowance of the contributory negligence to the deceased, the amount payable to the claimant would work out to be Rs. 12,000/-. If this amount is now to be awarded to the claimant along with interest at the usual rate of 12 percent per annum; from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded, it would work out to a figure than the compensation already awarded. In this view of the matter the amount awarded as compensation to the claimant warrants no interference in appeal.

5. This appeal is consequently hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 300/-.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //