IMPORTANT POINT
The court confirmed the compensation awarded towards loss of consortium and set aside the compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection based on the interpretation of consortium under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 05.08.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-2, North-District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MAC Petition No. 5451/2016 titled Smt. Sabita Chaudhary & Ors. v. Sh.Diwan Singh & Ors..

2. It was the case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that on 21.02.2014, at about 11:30 AM, the deceased - Shri Pintu Chaudhary was standing at Lower GTK Road, towards Alipur, SGT Nagar Delhi when a Canter bearing registration No. HR-39A-6883 (hereinafter referred to as the `Offending Vehicle'), being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no.5 herein, came and hit the deceased with great force. Due to the impact of the accident, the deceased fell down on the road and the offending vehicle ran over him. Though the deceased was rushed to BSA hospital, he expired during the course of treatment. FIR No. 162/14 under Section 279/304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station S.P. Badli, Delhi against the respondent no.5.

3. To prove their case, the claimants inter alia produced Sh.Vijay Kushwaha (PW-1), who was the eyewitness to the accident. He narrated the manner in which the accident had taken place. He stated that he, along with the deceased, were going on a motorcycle to Alipur. They stopped their motorcycle at Lower GTK Road as he had to urinate. While they were standing there, the offending vehicle came from behind at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased and ran over him.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the above version of PW-1 was in variance with his version before the Police, on the basis of which the above-mentioned FIR was registered. He submits that in the FIR, PW-1 had stated that he along with the deceased were travelling on the motorcycle when suddenly a rickshaw came in front of them. To save themselves, the deceased applied breaks and the motorcycle came to a halt. As the deceased was taking the motorcycle to a side, PW-1 saw the offending vehicle coming towards them at a fast speed. Though he raised his hands to warn the offending vehicle to stop, the driver of the offending vehicle did not reduce the speed. PW-1 claimed that he had asked the deceased to save himself, however, while deboarding from the motorcycle, the deceased fell down on the right side of the road and was run over by the offending vehicle. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that clearly the above contradiction in the two versions of the accident shows that the deceased had also contributed towards the accident.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that the testimony of PW-1 cannot be doubted. He submits that PW-1, in his cross-examination before the learned Tribunal, had explained that his statement recorded by the police was not correct and that he had not stated to the Police that a rickshaw had come in front of their motorcycle for which they had to suddenly apply the breaks.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

7. Taking either of the versions of PW-1, it cannot be said that the deceased had, in any manner, contributed to the accident. It is evident from the statement of PW-1 in both the versions, that the accident had taken place as the offending vehicle was being driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Even if the driver of the offending vehicle had seen the motorcycle standing in front of him or a person having fallen down from the same, the accident could certainly have been avoided if the offending vehicle had been driven at a normal speed and in a careful manner. Therefore, I find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and do not consider it to be a fit case for attributing contributory negligence to the deceased.

8. The next challen