FAO No. 1733 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 1733 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.5.2010 The General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ropar and others ..... Appellants vs Narinderjit Kaur and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 to 5. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 7.12.2009, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, S. A. S. Nagar (for short, `the Tribunal'). Briefly, the facts are that on 23.12.1998, Parminder Singh Brar was going from Ropar on his Maruti Car No. PB-27C-1787 to Amritsar. One Tarun Sethi was going behind him in his Sakoda Car No. CH-04-E-4904. When Parminder Singh Brar reached near Shreyans Paper Mill, then a Punjab Roadways Bus bearing No. PB-12-H-5708, driven by Bhag Singh respondent no. 6, came from Balachaur side and struck against the car of Parminder Singh Bar. Due to this impact, the car was badly damaged and he died at the spot. The dependents of the deceased filed claim petition which was allowed by the learned Tribunal. The appellants and respondent no. 6 were held liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal had wrongly relied upon the testimony of PW2 Tarun Sethi and ignored the statement of conductor of the bus regarding the accident in question. It was submitted that no accident had taken place. It was also submitted that the deceased was not the permanent employee of the company and in the absence of that assessment of income at Rs. 28,000/- per month is on higher side. The prayer was for reduction in compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents -claimants submitted that the claimants did not have any enmity with the driver or the owner of the bus. FIR, Ex. P-2, was got registered on the statement of PW2- Tarun Sethi immediately after the accident. He was cross-examined at length by the counsel for FAO No. 1733 of 2010 -2- the appellants before the learned Tribunal but he failed to bring any material on record which could falsify the testimony of the said witness. The driver and conductor also in their statements failed to rebut the evidence of PW2 Tarun Sethi. It is not the case of the driver and conductor that Tarun Sethi was having any grudge against them. As far as the grant of compensation of Rs. 32,40,000/- is concerned, the deceased, who was 34½ years of age, was working as Engineer in a private limited company. He had bright career ahead. He left behind widow, two minor children and old age parents. The compensation was granted by the learned Tribunal considering his income, which is not on higher side. However, it was submitted that in fact the deceased was earning Rs. 56,000/- per month but in the record, it was mentioned as 28,000/- per month. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses, etc. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper- book, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The accident in question was proved by the claimants by producing the author of the FIR, who was cross- examined at length by the counsel for the appellants before the learned Tribunal. He has specifically named the driver and number of the offending bus. The witnesses, driver and the conductor could not successfully rebut his testimony. As has been rightly observed by the learned Tribunal that there is no reason for the claimants to falsely implicate anybody in a criminal case. Meaning thereby that the findings of the Tribunal that accident had taken place with the vehicle in question, cannot be said to be perverse. In so far as grant of compensation is concerned, the claimants have proved monthly salary of Rs. 28,000/- vide salary certificate, Ex. P11, and also the income tax return, which was filed before the accident. Income claimed beyond that was not considered. As per income tax return for the assessment year 2008-09, the annual income of the deceased was shown at Rs. 2,99,160/- which was filed three months before his death. After deducting income tax of Rs. 29,281/- the annual income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 2,69,879/- which was rounded off to Rs. 2,70,000/-. It is not in dispute that the deceased had left behind five dependents. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 34½ years. While awarding the compensation, the learned Tribunal has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121. Considering the age of the deceased and also the dependents, the learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 16 and 1/4th cut towards the personal expenses of the deceased and granted a sum of Rs. 32,40,000/-, which cannot be said to be on higher side. FAO No. 1733 of 2010 -3- As far as grant of compensation under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses is concerned, this is an appeal filed by the Punjab Roadways for reduction and not by the claimants for enhancement. Upholding of award in the appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle will not prejudice the appeal, if any, to be filed by the claimants, which shall be considered on its own merits. In view of my above discussion, the present appeal is dismissed. 21.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge