The court discussed the principles for assessing damages in motor accident cases and the limited scope of interference by an appellate court in the amount of compensation awarded by the trial court.

P.D.Sharma, J.

1. On 18th September, 1960, at 5.45 P.M. an accident occurred at a crossing in the area of Ambala Cantonment as a result of which Harjit Singh lost his life, and Bibi Rajinder Kaur, aged 7 years, suffered serious injuries on her right leg. Puran Chand respondent No. 1 was driving the truck which was involved in the accident. Messrs Harnam Singh Harbans Singh, respondent No. 2 owned the truck. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3 were the insurers.

2. Mohan Singh father and Mrs. Iqbal Kaur mother Parminder Kaur and Kanwaljit Kaur minor sisters of Harjit Singh applied to the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act for an award of Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation for the death of Harjit Singh aged 21 or 22 years. They alleged that on 18th September, 1960 at about 5-40 P.M. Harjit Singh was going on his Motor-cycle while the minor Bibi Rajinder Kaur was occupying the pillion seat and when they had crossed half of the junction between the roads leading to Lal Kurti Bazar and the other to Railway Station, Ambala Cantonment, Puran Chand respondent No. 1 who was driving negligently and at a high speed truck No. D.L.G. 306 owned by Messrs Harnam Singh Harbans Singh respondent No. 2 towards the Railway Station knocked down the Motor-cycle on account of which both Harjit Singh and Bibi Rajinder Kaur were thrown on the road receiving serious injuries. The moving truck dragged the Motorcycle for some distance and after striking against a nearby electric pole came to standstill. Harjit Singh and Bibi Rajinder Kaur were immediately rushed to the Military Hospital where the former soon after succumbed to the injuries and the latters two shin-bones (femur and fibula) on X-ray examination were found fractured. She was treated in the hospital as indoor patient upto 9th October, 1960, but was not able to attend to her studies till the month of February, 1961.

3. Bibi Rajinder Kaur, her father Bhajan Singh Gujral and mother Mrs. Shanti Devi applied to the Claims Tribunal for awarding them Rs. 50,000 - as compensation on account of the injuries suffered by first of them in the accident said to have been occasioned by rash, careless and negligent driving of the truck by Puran Chand respondent No. 1.

4. The respondents in their written statement pleaded that Harjit Singh was primarily responsible for the accident as he was driving his Motor-cycle at a high speed and in a careless manner and that in fact that he dashed against the left front flank of the truck as a result of which he and Bibi Rajinder Kaur were thrown on the road and received injuries. The Claims Tribunal consolidated proceedings in both of these cases and framed the following issues :

1. Whether the accident is due to the rash and negligent act of Puran Chand or of the deceased Harjit Singh ? 2. What is the quantum of compensation due, if any, from whom and to whom ? He observed that Puran Chand respondent No. 1 at the crucial time was driving his truck at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident. He awarded Rs. 9,600/- as compensation to the parents of Harjit Singh and Rs. 10,400/- to Bibi Rajinder Kaur. They were also allowed costs of the proceedings. In his opinion the two minor sisters of Harjit Singh and parents of Bibi Rajinder Kaur were not entitled to any compensation.

5. The respondents felt aggrieved from the above order of the Tribunal and filed two separate appeals, Nos. F.A.O. 95 and 94 of 1962 against (1) Mohan Singh and his wife Mr. Iqbal Kaur and (2) Bibi Rajinder Kaur. The latter also was not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to her and lodged the third appeal, No. F A.O. 57 of 1962. This judgment will dispose of all these three appeals as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants in F A O Nos 94 and 95 of 1962 contended that the Tribunal wrongly held that the accident took place due to the sole neglige