FAO No.3781 of 2009 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.3781 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : July 31, 2009 U.P.State Road Transport Corporation ... Applicant-appellant VERSUS Rajesh Kumar and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. A.N.JINDAL, J.- CM No.17604-CII of 2009 is allowed and the delay of 98 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 19.1.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, whereby, claimant – respondent Rajesh Kumar (herein referred as the claimant) was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,30,400/- on account of the death of his wife Anita in a motor vehicle accident. Admittedly, the accident is not in dispute. However, counsel for the appellant – UP State Road Transport Corporation has raised two fold arguments; firstly, that the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.UP-80AM- 9504 was not at fault and secondly; that the compensation has been awarded FAO No.3781 of 2009 (O&M) [ 2 ] on higher side. Heard. So far as the first contention raised on behalf of the appellant is concerned, it is observed that PW4 Inder Pal, who was driving the motorcycle, while appearing in the witness box has stated that the offending bus was being driven rashly, negligently and at a high speed and that it hit his motorcycle from the back side. Besides, the driver of the offending vehicle, namely Salim also appeared as RW1 and stated that the motorcycle had struck with a stationary car and resultantly, the deceased had fallen on the road in front of the bus, as such the accident could not be avoided despite his best efforts. Gitam Singh (RW2), who was Conductor on the offending bus, while appearing in the witness box has given altogether a different version and denied the factum of accident even. Considering the inconsistencies in the statements of the appellant's own witnesses, the Tribunal has rightly ignored the story set by it and has rightly drawn an adverse inference against the appellant. Had the motorcycle struck against a parked car, there was no reason for the appellant's witnesses to remain silent regarding registration number of that car. Now, coming to the second contention, the Tribunal has assessed the compensation by taking into account the daily-wages of a labourer and applying multiplier of 12 after deducting 1/3rd amount as self dependency. In the circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be quite fair and reasonable, after holding the driver of the offending bus at fault. FAO No.3781 of 2009 (O&M) [ 3 ] No grounds to interfere in the impugned award are made out. Dismissed. July 31, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE