In cases of road accidents, if the deceased is found to have contributed to the negligence, the compensation payable to the claimants should be reduced on account of the deceased's contributory negligence.

S.S.Sodhi, J.

1. Amar Nath Sachdeva, who had a newspaper stall at the bus stand Zira was run over by truck No. PNB 2560 while going across the road to hand over a bundle of newspapers to the driver of the bus going to Talwandi Bhai. This happened on July 7, 1973 at about 9 a.m. He died later at night at the hospital at Amritsar, where he had been taken after the accident.

2. It is in respect of this accident that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the claimants, who are the two minor sons of the deceased, Balkishan and Yudhvir.

3. The contention raised in appeal was that the accident had occurred entirely due to the fault of the deceased himself, as he had proceeded to cross the road without caring to see whether or not it was safe to do so. In the alternative, it was argued that this was a case of contributory negligence and despite a finding to this fact no reduction in compensation has been made on account thereof. The legality of the award of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for loss of love and affection was also questioned.

4. A reading of the award of the Tribunal would show that while dealing with the issue of negligence, it had been held that the driver of the truck was `guilty of culpable negligence as the accident had been caused due to the rashness and negligence of Darbara Singh, driver. Turning to the issue relating to the amount payable as compensation, however, the Tribunal observed :

"Since the accident had taken place due to the rashness and negligence of Darbara Singh, respondent, the applicants are entitled to compensation but it will have to be borne in mind that Amar Nath (deceased) had also contributed to the negligence to some extent as he had tried to cross the road without being cautious of the vehicles moving on the road and that the accident had taken place when he had retraced mid-way. This circumstance will be taken into account only for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion about the damages."

5. The Tribunal appears to have overlooked these findings when awarding compensation as admittedly no reduction was made on account thereof. Be that as it may, the question remains, who is to be blamed for the accident and to what extent. There is no dispute that the deceased was run over while trying to cross the road. What was stated in the claim application was that when the deceased had stepped on to the road, he suddenly saw a truck coming from the side of Talwandi Bhai. This truck was being driven rashly and negligently. No horn was blown. In order to save himself, the deceased tried to get back but was overtaken by the truck and was fatally injured thereby. Negligence was thus imputed to the truck driver.

6. The respondents, on the other hand, took the plea that it was the deceased, who had been negligent. The version being that he had crossed half of the road when on hearing the horn, he suddenly stopped and turned back. In the meanwhile, the truck reached there and the deceased struck against the right mud-guard thereof. It was denied that the truck was being driven at the fast speed.

7. Turning now to the evidence on record the eye-witness account of the occurrence was given by AW-1 Sardara Singh, the Addl. Incharge, who deposed that he was on duty there when the accident took place. According to him, the truck came at a high speed. He heard no horn. The deceased was in the middle of the road, when he was run over. The truck stopped 20 to 25 yards away from the place of impact. Next is the testimony of AW-2 Constable Swaran Singh who was on traffic duty at the time. He stated that he did not actually see the truck hitting into the deceased, but he deposed that the truck had stopped 10 to 15 yards from him.

8. It deserves not that AW-1 Sardara Singh had also been examined as a witness in the criminal case against the truck driver. His statement there was that the truck was being driven at a slow speed. In the fact of this contradictory evidence, what becomes importan