The judgment established the principle of composite negligence and emphasized the joint and several liability of concurrent tortfeasors in determining compensation for fatal injuries.

MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

( 1 ) ON 27th November, 1979 an accident took place near the R. K. Puram crossing between a three wheeler scooter and a bus of the Delhi Transport Corporation (for short the DTC ). Rambir Singh, son of Appellants No. 1 and 2 was a passenger in the scooter and died as a result of the accident. At that time, the deceased was about 25 years of age. He had completed his graduation and was a final year student of a BAMS degree course in Ahinsa Ayurvedic College, Shankar Road, New Delhi.

( 2 ) THE Appellants (Appellant No. 2 has since died) filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short the MACT) seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of their son. Respondent No. 1 is the driver of the bus while Respondent No. 2 is the DTC and owner of the bus. Respondent No. 3 is the driver of the scooter while Respondents No. 4 and 5 are the owners of the scooter. Before the learned MACT, the Respondents (except DTC) were proceeded against ex parte. Respondent No. 3 (the driver of the scooter), however, entered the witness box to support the case of the Appellants before the learned MACT.

( 3 ) FROM the Award of the learned MACT, the facts appear to be that a DTC bus was being driven on the main road at a high speed by Respondent No. 1. A three-wheeler scooter driven by Respondent No. 3 took a right turn towards the direction of the bus through a gap in the central verge. According to Respondent No. 3, he saw the bus at a distance of about 50-60 yards but he still took a turn. The bus collided with the rear portion of the scooter and in the resultant accident, the Appellants son died.

( 4 ) THE learned MACT dealt with the following issues:

1. Whether Rambir Singh, deceased suffered fatal injuries in accident on 27. 11. 79 due to rash and negligent act of driving of bus No. DHP-2816 on the part of respondent No. 1?

2. WHETHER petitioners are the L. Rs of the deceased?

3. WHETHER the accident was caused due to negligent/rash driving of scooter DHR-8790?

4. TO what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled and from which of the respondents?

( 5 ) IN so far as Issue No. 2 is concerned, there was no dispute that the Appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased. In so far as Issues No. 1 and 3 are concerned, the learned MACT concluded that the deceased received fatal injuries in the accident and that both the driver of the DTC bus as well as the driver of the scooter were negligent in causing the accident.

( 6 ) WITH regard to Issue No. 4, that is, the compensation to be granted, the learned MACT analyzed the evidence and did not accept the averment that the deceased was doing some private practice whilst studying. According to the learned MACT, there was no evidence that the deceased had a shop or clinic for private practice. No cash books or account books were produced. Appellant No. 1 (the mother of the deceased) had stated that her son had given her Rs. 500/- on one occasion and Rs. 600/- on another occasion but the learned MACT did not accept this because there was no documentary evidence (in the form of a money order slip) to show any payment by the deceased to his mother who was living in a village outside Delhi. The learned MACT also felt that if the money was sent through some person, that person could have been produced to give evidence. In the absence of any evidence to show the method of payment, the learned MACT held that no money was sent by the deceased to his parents.

( 7 ) THE learned MACT then held that after completing his education, the deceased would have earned about Rs. 600/- per month out of which he would require Rs. 500/- for himself for his maintenance. As such, his saving would be about Rs. 100/- per month which could have been given by him to his parents. The annual dependency was, therefore, calculated at Rs. 1,200/ -. It was found that the mother of the deceased was about 60 years of age and the father was about 70 years of age

Click Here to Read the rest of this document