IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 235 of 2010. Date of Decision: 27.6.2011. Managing Director HRTC & Anr. ….Appellants. Versus. Yugal & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellants: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. M.S. Guleria, Advocate. For respondent No.4 Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal by the HRTC is directed against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I Mandi, District Mandi, HP whereby he allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,53,800/-. 2 2. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel for the HRTC challenges the award both on the grounds of negligence and quantum. 3. As far as issue of negligence is concerned, it stands proved on record that the bus belongs to the HRTC was going from Dharamshala to Reckong Peo. When it was approaching the Sundernagar bus stand, a scooter was coming from Sundernagar side. Near the gate leading to BBMB reservoir at Sundernagar there was a head on collision between the two vehicles and resultantly Ajit Singh driver of the scooter died. His legal heirs, i.e. mother, wife and minor son filed the claim petition. 4. The HRTC contested the claim petition. The main defence was that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. As far as the FIR is concerned, in the same the negligence is attributed to the scooter driver alone. However, while the evidence was being recorded, the claimants examined PW-4 Sh. Devki Nandan @ Sethi and PW-5 Prem Lal Saini who are owners of Lake View Guest House situated just opposite the tail control gate, Sundernagar. According to these two witnesses, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 3 the driver of the bus. The conductor and the driver were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 respectively. According to them, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter driver. In examination-in-chief both of them stated that on seeing the scooter being driven rashly and negligently, the bus was taken to the extreme left side of the road and in fact on the katcha portion of the road. However, in cross-examination both these witness admitted that the bus had struck a pole. According to them, the bus struck the pole in order to save the scooterist. 5. RW-3, who is the Investigating Officer made the position clear that this pole was on the extreme right side of the road if one is coming from Dharamshala side and on the extreme left side of the road if one is coming from Sundernagar side. He has clearly stated that if the bus had not struck the pole, it would have fallen into the canal. This means that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently. There is no plausible explanation as to how the bus reached the extreme right side of the road because judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the road on that stretch is extremely wide. 4 6. The learned Tribunal has apportioned the negligence 40% on the scooter driver and 60% on the HRTC. No interference is called for. 7. As far as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has taken the income at only Rs. 3,000/- per month, assessed the dependency of the family at Rs. 2,000/- per month and applied a multiplier of 17. The award is just and reasonable calling for no interference. Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (Deepak Gupta), Judge 27th June, 2011 Tm