TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (8) TMI 231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able to the negligent act of the driver of the road roller in leaving it unattended on the road without any sign or indication to warn road user of it being there. A sum of Rupees 1,05,000/- was, consequently, awarded as compensation to the claimants. 5. The claimants in their appeal sought enhanced compensation while on behalf of the State of Haryana, liability in this case was sought to be denied on a number of grounds. 6. Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Advocate-General, Haryana sought to contend at the very outset that a road roller did not fall within the definition of 'motor vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and consequently no application lay under Section 110-A of the said Act for compensation arising out of the accident in the present case. 7. 'Motor vehicle' has been defined by Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as "any mechanically propelled vehicle adopted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer, but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cle" as given in the said Act. To illustrate, Section 8(2) in specifying motor vehicles which the holder of a driving licence may be entitled to drive, lists road roller as one such vehicle. There is then Form A of the first schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act which sets out the form of an application for licence to drive a motor vehicle. This includes road rollers as one of the motor vehicle in respect of which a licence can be applied for. 12. There is a presumption, rebuttable no doubt, that where a word is repeated in the same enactment it beats the same meaning text makes it clear that the word must have a different construction. This is based upon the statement in Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes : "It is at all events reasonable to presume that the same meaning is employed by the use of the same expression in every part of an Act." There is, thus, no escape from the conclusion that a road roller is a "motor vehicle" as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act and, consequently, an application under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is competent arising from an accident with a road roller. 13. The learned Advocate-General next sought to challenge the award....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on account of his own negligence and not that of the driver of the road roller. 16. There is a basic fallacy in the argument of the learned Advocate-General. Where a motor vehicle is left parked on a highway in such a manner that it constitutes a hazard or danger to road users, the onus must be held to be upon one who seeks to avoid liability arising from the accident with such vehicle, to establish that despite such parking of the motor vehicle, the accident took place due to a fault or negligence of the other party or that such other party could have avoided the accident by reasonable care and caution. No such evidence or circumstances exist in the present case. 17. There is no eye-witness to the actual incident in the present case. All the eye-witnesses examined in this case, both on behalf of the claimants as also on behalf of the respondents, with regard to the accident are those who came to the place of incident in the morning, i. e., after the accident. 18. Further, persons travelling on a highway are entitled to proceed at a fast speed thereon unless there is some traffic or other obstruction on the road to show it down. It has come in evidence here and it is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was observed that the truck parked in such a manner was bound to users and it was further held that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased motor cyclist in striking against the truck so parked. 20. A half-hearted attempt was made to contend that Ish Kumar deceased was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident and the main reliance in this behalf was sought to be placed upon the testimony of RW 4 Shankar Lal who deposed that he had been working as a Munshi with the deceased for five of six years. It was his testimony that Ish Kumar used to take liquor every morning and evening and even on the day of the accident 11/2 bottles of whisky had been purchased and consumed by the deceased and his two companions which included this witness. The testimony of this witness cannot stand scrutiny and was, thus, rightly not relied upon. It appears that Shankar Lal came forth to depose against the claimants, being a disgruntled employee of the deceased, as he stated that fifteen days' pay was due to him from the deceased. He admitted that he himself took liquor every day and what is significant is his statement that he had never spoken to anyone that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... P-2 for the year 1971-72 showing the income of the deceased to be Rs. 78,900/- and EX. P-1 showing an income of Rs. 50,220/- for the period 1-4-1972 to 26-9-1972. Further it is on record that about Rs. 24,000/- was paid as Income Tax each year for the last four years. The Tribunal took the net income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and after making an allowance for the amount which the deceased must have been spending upon himself took the loss suffered by the claimants to be Rs. 2,000/- per month and it was on this basis that the amount awarded as compensation was computed. 25. Counsel for the claimants contended that though the income of the deceased from the evidence on record was clearly more than Rs. 3,000/- per month, even if it be taken that the loss suffered by the claimants on account of the death of the deceased was @ Rs. 2,000/- per month they were clearly entitled to compensation to the extent to which it had been claimed namely Rs. 3 lacs. He stressed in this behalf also the young age of the deceased and of the claimants. 26. It is now well settled, as was laid down in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, that the compensation to be assessed is the pecunia....