The court held that a driver is liable for damages caused by his rash and negligent driving and that the amount of compensation payable to the victims of a motor accident should be assessed taking into account the relevant factors, including the age of the deceased, her life expectancy, and the loss of income and companionship suffered by her family.

1. On June 6, 1965, there occurred an accident outside Nangal Town on the railway road going from east-south to northwest, the place of accident being marked by a circle in the plane, Exhibit X Both sides admit this accident. Tarlochan Chand was riding a cycle with his mother Sandhya Devi, who had a child one and a half years in her arm, riding behind on the carrier. He was on the railway road proceeding from east-south to north-west. In this very plan is shown the road which comes from the side of the Nangal Dam and runs from West to east. At a point it meets another road from south and beyond that is what is described as Nangal Canal Road. This goes to east. A truck No. 5106 driven by Malkiat Singh was coming on the Nangal Dam Road and moving from west to east. The plan further shows that the railway road is connected with the Nangal Dam and Nangal Canal roads straight as also by the formation of a crescent, the curved end of which starting from south joins the Nangal Dam and Nangal Canal roads in the north. On the south-west side of the crescent is a petrol pump, quite almost opposite to the place where the accident occurred and is shown by a circle in the plan. Tarlochan Chand was riding his cycle on the railway road from east-south to northwest. It is common ground that he was riding on his correct side, that is to say, on the left of the road. Malkiat Singh came with his truck on the Nangal Dam road and then turned on the railway road, arrived at the spot where the accident took place, took an immediate turn at almost right angle in the direction of the petrol pump and then and there was an impact between the truck and the cycle, with the result that the cycle was knocked down and so were its three occupants. Tarlochan Chand and his baby brother Surinder were injured but their mother died at the spot.

2. On one claim having been made by Tarlochan Chand and Surinder, the two brothers, and the other claim having been made by Chuni Lal, husband of Sandhya Devi deceased, on his own behalf and on behalf of his five minor children, including the two injured already named, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, hereafter referred to as the Tribunal, by its judgment and award of March 29, 1967, partly accepted both the claims. The Tribunal accepted the claim of Tarlochan Chand and Surinder to the extent of Rs. 600/- for the injuries suffered by them during the accident though it unfortunately remarked that Surinder being aged only about eighteen months at the time of the accident could not have suffered any pain, an impression which obviously cannot possibly bear any scrutiny. The Tribunal also accepted the claim of Chuni Lal on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor children, awarding all of them compensation in the amount of Rs. 14,400/ . The amount of compensation has been calculated in this manner : the age of Sandhya Devi deceased at the time of the accident was 35 years, to which an expectancy of 20 years has been attached, and the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 60/- per mensem on account of loss of her services to her husband and her children and also for loss of marital company to her husband In this manner the figure of Rs. 14,400/- was arrived at. In both cases the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, with which the truck driven by Malkiat Singh was insured, was made to bear liability for the payment of the amount awarded. Against the judgment and award of the Tribunal, on July 6, 1967, an appeal (F.A. No, 102 of 1967) has been filed by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, Hukam Chand Mehnga Singh, owners of the truck and Malkiat Singh, driver of the truck, appellants 1 to 3, to which Chuni Lal and his five children have been shown as respondents, in so far as the claim of Chuni Lal respondent on his own behalf and on behalf of his five minor children had been decreed, and a revision application (Civil Revision 572 of 1967) has been filed by the