(1.) THE challenge in appeal here is to the denial of compensation to the widow and children of Avtar Singh deceased, who was killed in an accident with the bus CHW 3502. This result flowing from the finding of the Tribunal against the claimants, on the issue of negligence.

(2.) THE accident occurred at about 6 p. m. on August 13, 1983 in the Industrial Area, Chandigarh. It was the case of the claimants that Avtar Singh deceased was proceeding towards the old workshop in the Industrial Area, Chandigarh on his Hero Majestic CHN 1937 when the bus CHW 3502 came there from the opposite direction at a very fast speed and hit into the Hero Majestic while going on to its wrong side of the road. The Hero Majestic came under the left front wheel of the bus as a result of which Avtar Singh was thrown at a great distance and he thereby suffered serious injuries as a consequence of which he was killed at the spot.

(3.) ACCORDING to the bus driver, on the other hand, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. The version put forth by him being that he was taking his bus from the old workshop to the new workshop and when he reached near the turning of the Transport Area, he saw the deceased on his Hero Majestic overtaking a stationary truck, in a negligent manner. In order to save him, he swerved his bus towards his extreme right, but the deceased could not control his Hero Majestic and he thus came and hit against the left front wheel of the bus and then fell down and sustained injuries. He and the other employees of the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking then got the deceased admitted in the General Hospital, Chandigarh.

(4.) THE case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of PW 6 Manjit Singh who plies a rehri in Sector 15. This witness deposed that on the day of the incident, he met Avtar Singh deceased in the Sabzi Mandi in Sector 26, Chandigarh. Avtar Singh had gone there to buy fruit. On the way back, he accompanied Avtar Singh on his cycle. In other words, while Avtar Singh was on his Hero Majestic, he, Manjit Singh, was going along with him on cycle. When they reached near the crossing, which turns towards Industrial Area, Avtar Singh, he deposed, signalled to his right. Before he could take a turn, however, the offending bus came from the right side of the deceased at a very fast speed and suddenly struck against him. According to Manjit Singh, Avtar Singh was on the left side of the road and had taken a turn towards the right side when the accident occurred. He then raised a hue and cry and some people gathered at the spot. Avtar Singh was then taken to the hospital in another bus which arrived there. On the way to the hospital, however, Avtar Singh succumbed to his injuries and died. He then went to the police station and lodged the report regarding this accident.

(5.) THE counter-version comes from the bus driver, RW 1, Iqbal Singh who deposed that there was a truck parked on the crossing of the Transport Chowk. When he reached near this chowk, he saw Avtar Singh deceased, who was coming from the opposite direction, trying to cross this parked truck. In order to save Avtar Singh, he took the bus towards its right, but Avtar Singh, as he reached near the bus, got perplexed and hit into the bus and then fell down. Employees from the workshop reached the spot and brought another bus and carried Avtar Singh in it to the hospital. He accompanied Avtar Singh to the hospital. A similar statement was made by RW 2, Baldev Singh, another driver of the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, who deposed that he was standing in front of the gate of the old workshop when he saw this accident. There is then the testimony of RW 3, Gurnam Singh, who stated that he was on duty at the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking Workshop when Iqbal Singh came and informed him of this accident and asked that another bus be taken from the workshop to remove the injured to the hospital. He then took a bus to the place of accident from where they took the injured Avtar Singh to the hospital.

(6.) THE Tribunal doubted the presence of PW 6 Manjit Singh at the spot at the time of the accident. The reasons for holding so cannot indeed be faulted. The meeting of Manjit Singh and Avtar Singh deceased in the Grain Market, Sector 26 was purely a chance meeting. There was, at any rate, no occasion or reason for them to have been going together towards the Industrial Area when the accident occurred. Manjit Singh has his rehri in Sector 15. The direct and the shortest route to his place of work was from the Madhya Marg and not the Industrial Area and what is more, it was the time of the day when the rehri market is at its busiest and yet Manjit Singh Would have the court believe that for no special reasons whatsoever, he just went along with Avtar Singh. (7.) AS for his being at the Grain Market, Manjit Singh sought to account for it by deposing that he had gone there to purchase tea leaves. It is to be noted, however, that no tea leaves were in fact purchased by him on that occasion.

(8.) MANJIT Singh then states that he went to the hospital with Avtar Singh, but there is no mention of his presence in any hospital record. Rather, Avtar Singh is recorded there as having been brought by a police constable. Manjit Singh also deposed that Avtar Singh was dragged by the bus before it eventually stopped. The medical evidence does not disclose any marks of dragging on the dead body of the deceased. Further, when asked what time of the year it was when this accident had occurred the reply of Manjit Singh was that it was when the weather was neither hot nor cold. The month of August cannot possibly answer to this description.

(9.) THE version of Manjit Singh also stands belied by the site plan Exh. PC which shows that the place of accident was not just as Avtar Singh had entered the crossing rather well beyond the middle of it.

(10.) IT will be seen, therefore, that there are serious, doubts regarding the incident having been witnessed by PW 6 Manjit Singh and his evidence cannot, therefore, be relied upon.

(11.) THE other evidence on record and the circumstances brought out thereby do, however, establish some negligence also on the part of the thus driver. It would be pertinent to advert here to the site plan Exh. PC. A reference to it would show that the accident had occurred at a T-junction. It was Avtar Singh deceased, who was already on this junction when the bus came there to go across it. On his part, before Avtar Singh got on to this crossing and turning right, it was clearly incumbent upon him to ensure that he could do so without laying himself open to harm or endangering the safety of other road users. This precaution was evidently not taken by him. Had he cared to look to his right, he could not, but, have seen the bus coming from his right, in which case the bus could have been allowed to go before he ventured on to the crossing. Avtar Singh did not exercise this precaution and the site plan rather shows that he had gone towards the other side of the road when the accident occurred. The bus driver, on his part, also did not exercise the due care and caution enjoined upon him while going across this T-junction. The significant point to note is that on his own showing, he swerved his bus towards the right and the bus is in fact shown parked on the wrong side of the road after the accident. It was required of the bus driver that he slowed down his vehicle while approaching the chowk. Had he done so, he could have stopped the bus seeing Avtar Singh coming on to the crossing. The circumstance that he swerved his bus towards the right is a clear pointer to the fast speed at which the bus was travelling when the accident occurred. Such thus being the circumstances, there can be no escape from the conclusion that both Avtar Singh and the bus driver Iqbal Singh must be held to be equally to blame for the accident. This being so, the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence must be modified accordingly.

(12.) TURNING now to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, the evidence on record shows that Avtar Singh deceased was only about 34 years of age at the time of his death. He died leaving behind his widow PW 5 Amrit Kaur who was 32 years of age and their two minor sons aged 7 and 5 years, respectively, who were wholly dependent upon the deceased. Avtar Singh deceased was working as a machineman in the Haryana Co-operative Press, as was deposed to by PW 3 Balwant Ram Prashar, Head Clerk of that press. The total emoluments of the deceased, according to this witness, were a little over Rs. 1,000/- per month besides his entitlement to bonus at the rate of Rs. 750/-per annum.

(13.) THE compensation payable to the claimants has to be assessed keeping in view the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 (Pandh). Considering the circumstances and the situation of the claimants and the deceased, in the context thereof, the dependency of the claimants deserves to be assessed at Rs. 9,000/-per annum with a multiplier of16. So computed, the compensation payable to the claimants would work out to Rs. 1,44,000/ -. After making an allowance for the contributory negligence of Avtar Singh deceased, the amount payable to the claimants would be Rs. 72,000/ -. The claimants are accordingly hereby awarded this sum as compensation which they shall be entitled to along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded. Out of the amount awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/-each shall be payable to the sons of the deceased and the balance to his widow Amrit Kaur. This appeal is consequently hereby accepted to this extent with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 500/ -.