F.A.O. No.318 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** F.A.O. No.318 of 2001 Date of Decision:17.10.2008 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Patiala .....Appellant Vs. Gurjeet Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Baljit Puri, Advocate for the respondents. **** HARBANS LAL, J. The facts which led to the filing of this case are that on 22.3.1996, the deceased was travelling in Bus No.P3-11-F-9702 driven by Taj Kumar, driver- respondent. Jang Singh was conducting this bus. The deceased- Darshan Singh was on duty on bus No.PJG-7489, which went out of order. He along with the passengers boarded bus No.PB11-F-9702. When this bus just crossed village Bindran on Bhawanigarh Sangrur road, the backside window of the bus got suddenly opened due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by afore-mentioned respondent. As its consequence, the deceased fell down from the bus and sustained grievous injuries. He was removed to Civil Hospital, Sangrur where he was declared brought dead. He was working as a Conductor and earning about Rs.5,000/- per mensem. On these allegations, Gurjeet Kaur widow, Manpreet Kaur minor daughter, Gurinder Pal Singh minor son and Labh Kaur mother of Darshan Singh, deceased lodged the claim for compensation. In their joint written statement, the respondents inter-alia pleaded that the bus was F.A.O. No.318 of 2001 -2- coming to Sangrur at a normal speed. The deceased was travelling in the bus in a drunken condition. Due to his own fault, he fell down from the bus as a result of which he died. The conductor of the ill fated bus had informed the Police and DDR was lodged. After inquiry, proceedings under Section 174 of Cr.P.C were initiated. As such, this petition is not maintainable. The following issues are framed:- 1. Whether Darshan Singh died on account of negligent driving of Taj Kumar while driving Bus No.PB-11-F- 9702 of PRTC on 22.3.1996? If so, its effect? OPP 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Relief. Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (for brevity, `the Corporation), appellant urged with a good deal of force that from the evidence on record, it is proved that Darshan Singh, deceased was in drunken condition and he himself being a Conductor should have been more careful while travelling in the bus. He further puts that no passenger of the bus has been produced by the claimants to prove that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of bus driver, Taj Kumar. He further agitated at the bar that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal being 12 is on the higher side as it should have been 8. Lastly, he maintained that the learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of Rs.12% per annum whereas in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court it should have been 7.5% per annum. In response, Mr. Baljeet Puri, Advocate representing the F.A.O. No.318 of 2001 -3- respondents argued that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is quite just and reasonable as the accident has been admitted. He further pressed into service that as is borne out from the evidence on record, it has been rightly held by the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred owing to the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus and as regards interest, the same is also not on the higher side. I have well considered the rival contentions. The learned Tribunal has observed that “in the DDR, it has nowhere been mentioned that the deceased was in drunken condition and Taj Kumar, driver RW3 of the offending bus in his statement on oath has stated that near Ghabdan, the road was in bad condition and due to opening of the door of the bus, Darshan Singh fell down due to his own fault. So, in his statement in Court, respondent No.1 (referring to Taj Kumar, Driver) has set up a new version that road near Ghabdan was in a bad condition and due to this reason, the door of the bus opened and Darshan Singh fell down due to his own fault. To my mind, no exception can be taken to these observations.” It is deducible from these observations that at the time of lodging DDR (Ex.R.1), no plea was taken that the deceased was in drunken condition. Later on, in the Court, the driver of the offending bus materially improved upon this fact. The possibility of there being some defect in the door of the bus cannot be ruled out. Due to such defect, the door got opened abruptly and the deceased fell down. It was obligatory upon the driver of the offending bus to keep the door/ windows thereof in order before taking the same on road. The vehicle must be roadworthy. As regards the multiplier, age of the deceased was 45 years. Thus, the multiplier 12 is not on the higher side. Consequently, the contentions raised by Mr. Nehra on the stated aspects F.A.O. No.318 of 2001 -4- being devoid of any merit are turned down. Insofar as interest is concerned, the same seems to be on the higher side. As such the same is reduced to 7.5% per annum in view of the observations rendered by the Apex Court in re: Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited v. S. Rajapriya & others, 2005(3) Accident Claims Journal, 1441 (S.C.). Accordingly, the award is modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount of compensation, i.e., Rs.4,64,400/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment of the said amount. Disposed of accordingly. October 17, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No