IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.67 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision:21.02.2011 Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another ....Appellants versus Malkiat Kaur and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate, for the appellants. None for the respondents. ---- 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) 1. The appeal is on the issues of negligence and quantum. The claimants had produced no oral evidence for the accident except the their version for the status of the party and chose to rely on the fact that a criminal case had been registered against the driver and that proved the negligence of the driver. The driver, who had denied the accident and its involvement, gave evidence to the effect that at the time when the vehicle was coming, there had been already an accident and his vehicle was not in any way involved. The Tribunal reasoned that the evidence of the driver was inconsistent and a State Transport Corporation which had been responsible for the cause of the death had not brought before the FAO No.67 of 1999 (O&M) - 2 - Court the evidence of any passenger in the vehicle who travelled at the that time to say that the vehicle had not been involved at all. Though I will not normally take the registration of complaint with the police as proof of negligence, given the proximity of the fact of accident to the registration of complaint with all details relating to the vehicle including the registration number, I have no reason to believe that it must have been a cooked up case against the appellant-Corporation. The fact that the driver was acquitted also would be of no consequence for proof of involvement of the vehicle in an accident before a Tribunal. 2. At the time of appeal, this Court has permitted the claimants to withdraw upto Rs.1 lakh and stayed with regard to the remaining. The claimants were the parents and the deceased was a police constable, earning Rs.3,041/-. The grievance of the appellants is that a multiplier had been adopted with reference to the age of the deceased and not with reference to the age of the claimants themselves. If the compensation were to be reappraised by making provision for a 50% increase in salary for the deceased and the choice of multiplier was of less value than what had been taken by the Tribunal, they would have resulted in a compensation in excess of what has been determined by the Tribunal. I will not, therefore, make any modification even with reference to the claim of compensation. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21.02.2011 sanjeev