The duty of the truck driver to wait before taking a U-turn and the lack of evidence for the deceased's future prospects influenced the court's decision.

Reva Khetrapal, J.

By way of this judgment it is proposed to dispose of two appeals arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') viz., MAC App. No. 482/2007 Sh. Sohan Thakur v. Anil Kumar and Ors. and MAC App. No. 483/2007 Smt. Shobha Sharma v. Anil Kumar and Ors. Both the appeal arises out of the same judgment and award dated 2nd April, 2007 relating to a motor vehicular accident which had taken placed on 2nd December, 2002 within the jurisdiction of police station Sadar Rajpura, Punjab.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of both the appeals are as follows: One Kuldeep Sharma along with one Kanti Patel was going for official work to Ludhiana in car bearing No. DL-7-C-7197. The car was being driven by Sohan Thakur, the Appellant in MAC App. No. 482/2007. At about 4.20 p.m. when they reached the G.T. Road, near Surindra Factory, Ghagar, suddenly a truck bearing No. PAT-5911, driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, took a U-turn from the Rajpura side and appeared in front of the car. The car driver applied the brakes but could not avoid the accident which ensued. The car struck the back side of the truck resulting in the instantaneous death of Kanti Patel, who was the occupant of the first seat. The occupant of the back seat, Kuldeep Sharma, suffered grievous injuries and remained under treatment till he ultimately died on 7th February, 2003.

3. Two claim petitions were instituted, one by the driver of the car-Sohan Thakur, the Appellant in MAC App. No. 482/2007 and the other by the legal representatives of the deceased Kuldeep Sharma, being MAC App. No. 483/2007. In the written statements filed by the driver, owner and insurer of the offending truck, the factum of accident was categorically denied, and consequently the liability to pay compensation by the Respondent No. 3, Insurance Company. Both the cases proceeded to trial and after considering the evidence adduced on record, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that it was clear from the evidence that the car driver had run into the truck which had almost crossed by taking a U-turn and thus, the car driver was also negligent and blameworthy. The liability of the car driver was assessed at 20% while that of the truck driver was fixed at 80%. Thus, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while fixing the quantum of compensation payable to the Appellant, Sohan Thakur, after assessing him to be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,07,332/- deducted 20% towards contributory negligence and held the net compensation payable to be in the sum of Rs. 85,866/- with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of award.

4. Likewise, in the case of the compensation awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased Kuldeep Sharma the net compensation payable to the claimants was held to be Rs. 8,59,410/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. after deducting 20% of the amount on account of the contributory negligence of the driver of the car.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the Appellants have filed the present appeals, both in respect of the compensation awarded to the Appellant Sohan Thakur and the compensation awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased Kuldeep Sharma.

6. The learned Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. D.D. Singh, forcefully contended that the Appellant Sohan Thakur was not at all responsible for the accident and the accident occurred on account of the sole negligence of the offending truck. Accordingly, he contended that the deduction of 20% of the compensation towards the contributory negligence of the car driver was unwarranted and unjustified, particularly in the case of Kuldeep Sharma, who was only a passenger in the car. Heavy reliance was placed by him upon the site plan Ex.PW4/1 to contend that the driver of the car keeping in view the fact that the truck suddenly appear