The driver of a motor vehicle is guilty of negligence if he fails to take the basic precautions for turning towards the right as prescribed by Rule 9 of the Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. These seven appeals - one preferred by the claimants and the rest by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., and the owner of the insured vehicle (with cross-objections in two) -raise identical questions of law and fact. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this judgment will govern all of them.

2. All these appeals arise from an unfortunate automobile accident which took place on the 31st of July, 1968, within the town of Amritsar. On that day at about 10.30 P. M. Sehdev Seth appellant was driving Fiat Car No. PNJ 200 from Railway Station, Amritsar, towards Putlighar on the main Grand Trunk Road. As the driver approached a traffic island located at the junction of the G.T. Road with the road going over the over-bridge (called the Rego Bridge, which passes Over the railway lines) he dipped his head-lights. From the opposite side a Scooter driven by Harbans Singh deceased with his wife Smt. Manjit Kaur (now the claimant along with her children) seated on the pillion seat thereof approached nearer. The deceased scooter driver instead of going round the traffic bland which was incumbent on him for going towards his right made a sudden short cut and swerved towards the right to climb on to the Rego over-bridge. In attempting to do so he crashed head-on into the on-coming car No. PNJ 230 driven by Sehdev Seth appellant and the force of the impact violently threw both the riders on the scooter on the road the driver of the car stopped the vehicle dead within two to three yards of the impact, However, Harbans Singh deceased received grievous injuries and even though he was removed forthwith to the V. J. Hospital, he succumbed to them during the night. Smt. Manjit Kaur claimant received relatively minor injuries and survived. The accident apart from others was -witnessed by Constables A.W. 6 Inder Singh and A. W. 7 Shingara Singh.

3. Smt. Manjit Kaur claimant along with her five children preferred a petition before the Tribunal claiming damages to the tune of Rs, 4,40,000/-. The learned Tribunal held on issue No. 1 that the driver of the car was driving it at a relatively high speed and had been negligent in not being able to avoid a collision with a scooter. He assessed the damages for the death of Harbans Singh at a lump sum of Rs. 43,530/- and also granted Rs. 3600/- in respect of the injuries sustained by Smt. Manjit Kaur. On appeal being preferred by the claimants as also by the insurer and the carowner, the learned Single Judge has held that the deceased Harbans Singh was certainly guilty of negligence but opined that his contribution towards this accident should be fixed at 20 per cent whilst that of Sehdev Seth appellant at 80 per cent, apparently because he was, according to the learned single Judge, responsible for the accident to a larger extent, After apportioning the negligence the learned Single Judge adverted to the issue of damages and enhanced the amount of compensation for the death of Harbans Sinjh to Rs, 1,50,000/- whilst maintaining the compensation of Rupees 3600/- given to Smt. Manjit Kaur claimed for her injuries.

4. In this appeal the matter is now in a narrow compass in view of the findings of fact arrived at by the learned single Judge himself. These have indeed been not seriously assailed even on behalf of the claimants. With regard to the patent negligence, on the part of Harbans Singh deceased in driving the scooter he first observed as follows:

"In the appeal, I have gone through the evidence with the help of the learned counsel, so far as the omission of Harbans Singh, deceased, to make a turn round the traffic island is concerned, evidence of Inder Singh A. W. 6. is quite clear. He has categorically stated that the deceased did not reach the traffic island before he made a turn towards the Rego Bridge. It is now to be seen whether in these circumstances the appellant still should be held responsible for negligent driving or not........."

A