The wife living apart from her husband has a subsisting right to claim maintenance from him during his lifetime and is entitled to succeed to his estate as an heir. Therefore, she is entitled to compensation in case of his death in a motor accident.

1. In the context of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , what right vests in a wife, living apart from her husband, to claim compensation consequent upon his death in a motor accident ? Herein lies the meaningful and significant point which arises for determination in this appeal, besides, of course, the apportionment of blame for the accident and the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants.

2. Several passengers were injured and one died too, namely, Mohinder Pratap Gupta, when the Punjab Roadways bus PLG 3720 they were travelling in was involved in an accident with the truck PBN 778 at the crossing on the Amritsar-Gurdaspur road near the outskirts of Batala. This happened on August 15, 1981, at about 3 p.m. The bus was on its way from Amritsar to Gurdaspur while the truck had come on to the crossing from its right from the Aliwal-Jalandhar road bypass. It was the finding of the Tribunal that both the bus driver as also the truck driver were equally to blame for the accident. A sum of Rs. 1,93,000 was awarded as compensation to the claimants, they being the mother, widow, son and daughter of Mohinder Partap Gupta deceased.

3. There can be no manner of doubt that the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident must share the blame for it. A reference to the evidence on record would show that even as per the testimony of the two drivers, namely, RW 2 Santokh Singh, the truck driver, and RW 3 Sajjan Singh, the driver of the bus, neither slowed down while approaching the crossing despite the fact that they had seen each other coming on to this crossing from a long enough distance to have enabled them to do so had they so chosen. The accident itself took place in the middle of the crossing. The photographs taken soon after the occurrence clearly bring out the fact that it was the front side of the bus that hit into the left-hand side of the truck and, what is more, the truck can be seen lying off the road in a ditch. This situation is indicative of the fact that the truck must have come on to the crossing before the bus reached there and also that the bus must have been travelling at a fairly fast speed. According to AW 8 Kartar Singh, the only eye-witness to be examined other than the two drivers, the bus was coming at a very fast speed when it rammed into the body of the truck. The breach of the provisions of regulation 6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act is thus writ large on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles and, as regards the bus driver, of those of regulation 7 too. A similar situation arose in Piara Singh V/s. Gian Kaur, (1984) 86 Pun LR 331. There it was observed that where the accident occurs at a road intersection with one of the vehicles involved therein coming on to it from the right side of the other, both regulation 6 as also regulation 7 of the Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act stand attracted thereto. A duty is cast on the driver of the motor vehicle by the provisions of regulation 6 to slow down while approaching a road intersection and to enter it only in the knowledge that he can do so without endangering the safety of the persons thereon. Such persons included the driver of the vehicle himself and any other person who may be travelling in the vehicle. Regulation 7 casts a further duty on such driver on entering the intersection to give way to the traffic proceeding on the road, if any, designated as the main road and, in other cases, to that approaching the intersection from his right hand side. It was accordingly held that where an accident occurs at a crossing the negligence of the driver who contravenes both regulations 6 and 7 of the Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act would be two-thirds as compared to one-third that of the driver who disregards the requirements of regulation 6 only. Following this precedent, the finding on the issue of negligence as recorded by the Tribunal is accordingly modified to the extent that the