IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.148 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:04.02.2011 Nasibo and others ....Appellants versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Nabha Road, Patiala, through its General Manager, Patiala and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the appellants. None for the respondent. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation for death of the first claimant's husband. The accident was said to have taken place at the time when he was travelling by the respondents' bus belonging to Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (PRTC). The fact of the involvement of the vehicle was not denied, but it was contended that the deceased attempted to get into the bus and fell down and no negligence could be attributed to the driver. The claimant relied on the evidence of staff of PRTC itself, who was a witness to the accident and who stated that the accident took place when the deceased FAO No.148 of 1992 (O&M) - 2 - was attempting to board the bus and the conductor, without ensuring that all the passengers were securely inside, had given a whistle and the driver started the vehicle abruptly resulting in the deceased falling down and getting trapped under the tyres. The claimant also relied on the statement given by the deceased himself to higher authorities making entreaties on behalf of the claimant to provide for some compensation for an accident that had resulted while he was a driver. In that representation, it was stated that the front door of the bus accidentally opened and the deceased fell down and received fatal injuries. 2. The manner in which the evidence was tendered and the documentary proof was available, the Tribunal ought to have found that the negligence of the driver had been established, but the Tribunal had registered a different finding by making reference to the evidence of PW7-Bal Krishan that he did not appear before the police in connection with the case. The degree of proof of negligence, in a situation like this, is minimal, for, we are not undertaking an exercise whether there was any criminal negligence on the part of the driver. Any rash or negligent conduct which is civil in nature must be interpreted liberally to accommodate a claim arising for the death of a person in a motor accident. I will, therefore, set aside the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence and find the driver of the PRTC bus to be responsible for the accident. 3. The deceased was 45 years of age and the claimants were widow, son and two daughters. He was said to be aada (bus stand) Incharge and was earning about Rs.2,000/- per month. In evidence at the FAO No.148 of 1992 (O&M) - 3 - trial, the widow had given evidence to the effect that her husband was earning over Rs.3,000/-. I will take the income as stated in the petition as the basis for determining compensation. I will also provide the medical expenses which the claimant stated in her evidence as having been incurred by her during the period of his hospitalization and treatment for nearly 3 months before he ultimately succumbed to injuries at Rs.20,000/-. The compensation shall be as per the tabulation below:- Sr.No. Heads of claim High Court Amount (Rs.) Age: 45 Claimants: widow, son, 2 daughters 1. Income 2,000 2. Deduction 1/4 3. Multiplicand 1,500 x 12 4. Multiplier 14 5. Loss of dependence 2,52,000 6. Medical expenses 20,000 _______ Total 2,72,000 4. The appeal is allowed and the claimants are entitled to the amount determined with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability shall be on the owner of the bus and the respondents jointly and severally. The amount determined shall be distributed equally amongst the claimants. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 04.02.2011 sanjeev