IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: FAO(MVA).No.135 of 2001. Date of Decision :4th January, 2008 H.R.T.C. and another. …Appellant. Versus: Sumitra Devi and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for judgment?1 For the appellants: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate. . For Respondents. Mr.Raman Sethi, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 26th February, 2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr in M.A.C. Case No. 18 of 2000 titled Sumitra Devi and others Vs. H.R.T.C. and another. Shri Chet Ram was traveling in bus No.HP-33-5412 which met with an ill-fated accident on 26th April, 2000. Multiple injuries were suffered by various passengers and Chet Ram aged 30 years died in the said accident. He left behind his wife Sumitra Devi- claimant No.1 and two minor children Vidya Sagar, aged 11 years and Kumari Vidya, aged 9 years claimants No.2 and 3 respectively. A claim petition was filed by the said claimants under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 In the defence, the appellant has stated that the accident was not as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver but due to an act of God. The bus on its way to Sangla from Mandi, got stuck in a cyclone due to which one Pine tree from above suddenly got uprooted and rolled down the road hitting the bus as a result of which the bus got pushed down the road and fell into the gorge. The accident occurred due to an act of God and as such the appellants were not responsible for the same and no compensation was liable to be awarded in favour of the claimants. On merits the trial Court framed the following issues; 1. Whether Sh. Chet Ram had died on account of rash and negligent driving of bus No.HP-33-5412?. …OPP. 2.If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom are the petitioners entitled to?. …OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable?. …OPR. 4.Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder?. ..OPR. 5. Relief. In order to prove its case, the claimant examined herself Sumitra Devi as PW-1 and Gopal Singh (PW-2). The defendants examined Krishan Chand (RW-1) and Prithvi Pal Singh (RW-2). F.I.R. in relation to the said accident Ext.PA, post mortem report Ext. PB and death certificates Ext. PC and Ext. PDof deceased Chet Ram, the legal heir certificates Ext. PE and PF and the receipt of grant of Rs.10,000/- Ext.R-1 given by the State to the passengers of the ill-fated bus has been proved on record by the respective witnesses. 3 Appreciating the material on record, the court below came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver and the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs.1,87,200/-. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent conduct of the driver of the vehicle. Consequently, the appellants were not liable to pay the awarded amount. Alternatively it has been argued that the compensation awarded to the claimants is on the higher side and therefore the same needs to be reduced. From the pleadings of the parties, it is not disputed that the deceased was traveling in the bus at the time of accident and that he died as a result of the same. It has also been admitted that Rs.10,000/- was paid to the claimants as compensation. Relying upon the evidence led by the claimants, the court below came to the conclusion that deceased Chet Ram was having an income of Rs.1800/- per month and was contributing Rs.1300/- per month for the maintenance of the claimants. His annual income as such was determined at Rs.15,600/- per year. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident, as proved on record, was 30 years. The court below has applied the multiplier of 12 and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.1,87,200/-. The accident took place in the year 2000 when the minimum wages given to the labourer were fixed by the State Government at Rs.60/- per day. It has come on 4 record that the deceased was physically fit and able to earn his livelihood from agriculture. No appeal has been filed by the claimants against the said award. In my view, the multiplier has been applied on the lower side but, however, since no appeal has been filed by the claimants, therefore the finding of the court below to this effect is not liable to be interfered with. I have perused the statements of Krishan Chand (RW- 1) and Prithvi Pal Singh (RW-2). None of them have witnessed the occurrence of the accident. They are official witnesses and simply stated that an inquiry was conducted by the Department and on the basis of their spot inspection it could not be said that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the bus as the same was as a result of cyclone. However, Gopal Singh ( PW-2), who was a passenger traveling in the ill-fated bus has categorically deposed as under: “I am illiterate. I am shepherd. On 26.4.2000 I had been on way from Sungra to Jeori. I had boarded HRTC bus at Sungra. When we had crossed Nigulseri, one tree had fallen down the hill side. I had requested the driver to stop the bus in view of the danger ahead. The driver had tried to cross the highway at high speed and had struck against the tree which had fallen by that time on the highway with the result the bus had fallen off the highway. I had sustained multiple injuries in the accident. Several passengers of the bus had sustained fatal injuries. Among others, Subhash, Chet Ram, Bhadru Nand Lal had died in this accident. The accident had taken place due to the fault of the driver of the HRTC bus.” 5 The aforesaid deposition of this witness goes un- rebutted and the witness has not been cross-examined on the same at all. An F.I.R. was also registered in this regard. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, it cannot be said that the accident did not take place due to the negligence of the driver. The vehicle was being driven on the National highway through the area which even otherwise has a difficult terrain. It is not the case of the appellant that the cyclone was confined to the area of accident. There is also nothing on record to prove that the cyclone occurred at the time when the bus was being driven on the National highway at the relevant place and time. Some damage had taken place, as a result of the cyclone, prior to the bus having reached the place of the occurrence. The driver of the bus ought to have been more careful and vigilant while passing through the cyclone hit area. PW-2 has been specific in stating that he had cautioned the driver of the bus but in spite of the same he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the bus met with an ill-fated accident. It is an admitted case that many people either lost their lives or sustained severe injuries as a result of the same accident. The bus had fallen down by 200 meters. Therefore, I find no infirmity with the finding returned by the court below and the appeal needs to be rejected. Order accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. January 4 , 2008(R) 6