FAO No.2771 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** FAO No.2771 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision : 19.5.2011 Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation, Patiala and others .........Appellants Vs. Sukhwinder Kaur and others ..........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present:- Mr.Gurinder Singh Gill, Advocate, for the appellants Mr.J.S.Cooner, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4 --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No --- K.KANNAN, J (ORAL) :- CMA No.13099-CII of 2010 For the reasons stated in the Civil Miscellaneous application, it is allowed and the delay of 18 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. FAO No.2771 of 2010 1. The appeal is by the Corporation assailing the award on the grounds of quantum and issue of negligence. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the deceased was riding a new motor cycle and he was himself not quite adept at FAO No.2771 of 2010 (O & M) -2- driving and consequently the collision with the Corporation bus was brought by his own negligence. The contention was that deceased had one Narender Singh travelling as a pillion rider at the time of accident and the claimants had not placed the evidence of the pillion rider in this case. The Tribunal had, however, taken a decision of negligence by the fact that another person Gurnam Singh, who was said to be coming behind the deceased in another vehicle and who had also given the FIR gave evidence that the accident had happened only by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. I cannot make an inference that the person who rides a new motor cycle, is also new to driving. It is invariably a question of fact. I cannot also take the argument that since the pillion rider was not examined any adverse inference could be drawn. If another person in the proximity of the accident acquainted with the facts and who was himself the auther of FIR had been examined, I would take that to be sufficient proof of the negligent driving of the driver of the bus. 2. As regards the quantum, the evidence adduced was that the deceased was 45 years of age and owned 7 acres of agriculture land. The learned counsel argues that no documentary evidence was adduced for the income proof. If the ownership of 7 acres of agriculture land was not itself in dispute, the assessment made by the Tribunal, taking the income as ` 4,500/-per motnh, could not be said to be very high because even an acriculture labourer could get anywhere between ` 3,000/-to ` 4,000/-. In the matters relating to FAO No.2771 of 2010 (O & M) -3- assessment of income from agriculture land, the loss will be taken not merely from the point of the total income earned since the land would still be available for the benefit of the legal representatives. The managerial skills of the deceased for cultivating 7 acres of land cannot be less than ` 4,500/-as estimated by the Tribunal. The choice of multiplier was also in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 'Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121'. The assessment of compensation has been exceedingly modest and would call for no intervention. 3. Accordingly, the award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 19.5.2011 akm