FAO No.3544 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3544 of 2004 Date of Decision.01.12.2010 Tej Narain son of Sh. Khushi Lal, resident of village Mansapur, Tolemuvahi, District Madhuvati (Bihar) now at M/s Aggarwal Enterprises, Uklana Road, Narwana, District Jind and other ......Appellant Versus Rajinder Singh son of Sh. Surjit Singh Jat, resident of village Balak (driver of Bus No.HR-22-PA-0219) and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the insurance company. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, who was 21 years of age, are in appeal challenging the quantum determined by the Tribunal in a case where admittedly the deceased was travelling in the bus belonging to Haryana Roadways. He had fallen out of the bus through the front road and came under the rear wheels of the bus, got crushed and died. The evidence was placed through PW1, who said that he was near the site of the accident when he found that the driver of the Haryana Roadways driving the vehicle at a high speed and at the Harial Chowk, Narwana, the deceased fell down on his own and he admitted that he could not say whether the bus driver was at FAO No.3544 of 2004 -2- fault or not. He denied, however, the suggestion that the bus was not being driven at a high speed and that he was deposing falsely. Against the evidence of PW1, we have the evidence of RW-1, who was the driver and RW-3 who was the conductor. RW-1 said that he heard some one saying that the deceased jumped out from the running bus. In the cross-examination, he volunteered to state that the child (sic) fell down from the bus and the case was registered against him. RW-3 also stated that he did not himself see the deceased jumping out of the bus but he was told by some one that he jumped out. As regards the place of the accident and the speed at which the vehicle was being driven, the conductor said as follows:- “the bus at the place of accident was at a speed of 40/50 KMPH. It is correct that the turning point near Harial Chowk is at 900 (right angle). I had been asked to appear as witness. I did not note the deceased falling from the bus.” 2. Neither the driver nor the conductor had seen the deceased jumping out of the bus and they only believed that the deceased jumped out when some other passengers had stated so, I would take the entire evidence to be purely hearsay and not worthy of acceptance. There is no evidence to discredit the claim of PW1 that the accident had taken place when he saw the deceased getting ejected from the bus and coming under the wheels when the bus was being driven at a high speed. I will take, therefore, that there is no justification for merely restricting the award under no fault liability clause. On the other hand, the liability must exist in full for what the law accords to the claimants and not restrict it to a ceiling of FAO No.3544 of 2004 -3- Rs.50,000/-. 3. As regards the quantum of compensation, the claimants contended that the deceased was working as a mechanic in M/s Aggarwal and was earning Rs.3500/-. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had not adduced documentary proof that he was working in M/s Aggarwal or that he was earning Rs.3500/-. The best evidence should have been either to produce proof of the fact that he was technically qualified to work as a mechanic or examined his fellow worker to say that he was working along with him and that he knew what his salary was. The quality of evidence adduced by the claimant was poor and I would merely take the income at notional basis at Rs.15,000/- and accord to the claimant a compensation provided under Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act. I will provide for a deduction of 1/3rd and take the contribution to the family at Rs.10,000/- and adopt a multiplier of 17 and take the extent of loss of dependence at Rs.1,70,000/-. I would add the conventional heads of claims for loss to estate and funeral expenses at Rs.4500/-. In all, the total amount that will become payable would be Rs.1,74,500/-. The amount in excess of what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 4. The amount, which has already been granted, shall be credited to the account of the respondents. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 01, 2010 Pankaj*