In cases of contributory negligence, the compensation should not be reduced if the negligence was not the fault of the deceased.

1. The controversy in appeal here is with regard to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, they being the widow and 3 sons of Amarjit Singh deceased, who was killed in an accident with a truck at the crossing on the road between Sectors 35 and 36, Chandigarh. Amarjit Singh deceased was sitting on the pillion seat of the Scooter HIL 4098 when the truck CHW 1615 came and knocked him down. This happened on Nov. 14, 1977.

2. The Tribunal found this to be a case of contributory negligence with 75 per cent of the blame being apportioned to the driver of the scooter and the remaining 25 per cent to the truck driver. The loss to the claimants was assessed to be Rs. 48,000.00 , but in view of the finding of contributory negligence, the compensation awarded was only Rs. 12,000.00 .

3. The Tribunal committed a patent error in so reducing the compensation payable to the claimants. The contributory negligence here was that of the drivers of the truck and the scooter, not in any way that of Amarjit Singh. There was, thus, no occasion for any deduction being made from the compensation that the Tribunal had assessed to be payable to the claimants.

4. Faced with this situation, Mr. V. P. Gandhi, counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, sought to question the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal with a view to show that the negligence here was wholly that of the driver of the scooter, and, therefore, no liability could be fastened on those concerned with the truck, namely, its driver, owner and the Insurance Company with which it stood insured.

5. The driver and owner of the truck having chosen not to contest the claim, the respondent-Insurance Company was permitted to question the findings recorded by the Tribunal on all the issues raised.

6. The circumstances of the case clearly show contributory negligence to be writ large. Admittedly, the accident here had occurred at a crossing. Regulation 6 of the 10th Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act casts a duty upon the driver of a motor vehicle approaching a road intersection to slow down and to proceed to enter it only if he can do so without endangering the safety of persons there. Such persons include the driver of the vehicle himself and any other person who may be travelling in the vehicle. There is no evidence on record to suggest that either of the vehicles, namely, the scooter or the truck had been slowed down while approaching this crossing or that any care had been taken by either of them to seek to ensure that their entry into the crossing would not endanger the safety of any person there. In other words, both the truck driver and the scooter driver observed the requirements of Regulation 6 only in their breach. As regards the scooter driver, there was an additional requirement binding upon him, namely, that laid down by Regulation 7 of the 10th Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. This cast a further duty upon him to give way to the traffic on the main road. The main road here was clearly that on which the truck was travelling. In such a situation, as was held in Piara Singh V/s. Gian Kaur, (1984) 86 Pun LR 331, the contributory negligence of the truck driver would be one-third and two-thirds that of the driver of the scooter. There can, thus, be no escape from the finding of contributory negligence in this case.

7. In order to wriggle out of the rule laid down in Piara Singh s case (supra), Mr. V. P. Gandhi sought to lay stress upon the fact that the scooter had come on to the crossing from a smaller or comparatively less important road than that on which the truck was travelling. The argument being that by his coming on to the crossing without ensuring that it was clear, he rendered himself wholly to balme for the accident. Mr. H. S. Awasthy, counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, contended that as the evidence of P.W. 3 Iqbal Singh, P.W. 4 Ranjit Singh and P.W. 5 Balwant Singh Dhillon showed that the scooter was the first to ent