FAO No.1738 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1738 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.05.2011 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala ... Appellant Versus Rupinder Kaur and Anr. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** 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 issue of negligence and quantum by the Corporation. At the previous hearing, the Corporation was directed to file a copy of the FIR, since the argument was that the accident had taken place on a road where there was road divider and the driver of the Corporation bus could not have driven the vehicle to the wrong side of the road, as falsely claimed by the claimants. This argument was made even before the Tribunal but the same had been rejected as no witness had spoken about the existence of divider or the impossibility of the driver coming to the wrong side of the road to cause the collision. The Tribunal, on the other hand, found that even the evidence adduced by the Corporation was inadequate to discredit the testimony rendered already by the claimants that the accident had taken place only by the negligence of the driver. The driver himself was not examined nor any explanation was given. The Conductor was examined and the Tribunal reasoned that he could not have know how the accident had taken FAO No.1738 of 2011 (O&M) -2- place. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation strenuously contends about the impossibility of the accident in a case where there existed a road divider. I will reject the argument for the very same reason which had been given by the Tribunal and hold that only the driver of the Corporation bus was responsible for the accident. 3. As regards the quantum, the deceased was said to have owned 4 acres of agricultural land. The Tribunal assessed the managerial skills of the deceased at `4,000/- and applied 1/4th cut for the personal expenses and determined `3,000/- as the contribution to the family. Age was taken by the Tribunal from the postmortem certificate at 50 and a multiplier of 13 was adopted. 4. Learned counsel argues that there was no proper proof of age or income and even the deduction could not have been 1/4th when two of the sons were major. One son was said to be 25 years of age and another one daughter although a major, was still unmarried. Issue of dependency is essentially a matter of evidence and unmarried daughter is always dependent on the parents. As regards the elder son who was 25 years of age, if the Tribunal took him also to be dependent on the basis of evidence and provided for 1/4th deduction, I will not take this ground alone as sufficient to merit an admission for reappraisal on the issue of quantum. In my view, the overall assessment of compensation is appropriate and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 5. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. MAY 30, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE