IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.233 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision:15.11.2010 Smt. Maya Devi and others ....Appellants versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The claimants are in appeal for enhancement of compensation. The first claimant's husband, who was a driver in HMT Bus, died in collision with the vehicle that belonged to Haryana Roadways. The only eye-witness, who was examined was PW3, who stated that the accident took place on account of negligent driving of the driver of the Haryana Roadways at the chowk of Sectors 29-30 when the deceased had almost negotiated a turn and the Haryana Roadways bus came at a high speed and struck against the bus and dragged along for about 30-35 feet. The offending vehicle was said to have struck a booth after covering a distance of 200 feet and stopped. 2. It was elicited in the cross-examination that he was not even an employee of HMT Company and he could not have travelled in the vehicle at the time of accident. As against the evidence of PW3, the conductor of Haryana Roadways was examined, who stated that when FAO No.233 of 1996 (O&M) - 2 - the Haryana Roadways was crossing the light point at Sectors 29 and 30, the bus driven by the deceased came from the left side and hit against the Haryana Roadways. He gave further evidence to the effect that while the HMT bus stood at the place of the accident itself, by the impact by which it hit against the Haryana Roadways, it went a further distance and stopped merely some 200 feet away. It must be noticed that it was no head-on collision and the driver of the Haryana Roadways was not hurt. The driver of the HMT bus alone got hurt and there is no evidence whether any other passenger in HMT vehicle was injured. The presence of PW3 seems doubtful for it was a private service vehicle and a non- employee could not have been present. The circumstances of how he had boarded the bus was not explained. If we consider the fact that the vehicle, which the deceased was driving, had come from the left side, the accident could have been averted, if the deceased had exercised some caution. I cannot, however, accept that the Haryana Roadways was being driven slowly since the fact elicited was that the vehicle travelled another 200 feet before it stopped. Evidently, the Haryana Roadways must have been also driven at a high speed. The Tribunal, under the circumstances, was justified in finding that the drivers of both the vehicles had been guilty and apportioned the liability at 50:50. I will retain the same finding. 3. As regards the quantum, the deceased was employed in a Government of India undertaking and the salary that he was drawing was Rs.3,906. The Tribunal made no provision for prospect of future increase in salary, which I will provide at 30% in the manner suggested FAO No.233 of 1996 (O&M) - 3 - by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another-2009 ACJ 1298. I will, therefore, take the salary to be Rs.4,000/-, provide for 30% increase and take Rs.5,200/- as the average income. He had three dependents and, therefore, I will provide for a deduction of 1/3rd and take the yearly contribution to at Rs.41,600/-. Commensurate to his age, I will take the multiplier as 13 for that would yield a figure of Rs.5,40,800/- as the loss of dependence. I will add an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the wife and another Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection for a minor child. I will add another Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate and Rs.2,500/- for funeral expenses. In all the total amount would come to Rs.5,58,300/-. Having regard to the finding that both the vehicles had contributed to the accident, there shall be a partial abatement upto 50% of the amount determined. The claimants would be entitled to Rs.2,79,150/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.2,02,800/- and the amount found in excess shall be distributed between the wife and the daughter only. Having regard to the fact that the accident had taken place more than 17 years from now, I will make no direction for deposit of any portion of the amount. The additional amount shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 15.11.2010 sanjeev