FAO No.3359 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3359 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 03.05.2011 Jaswant Ram son of Gurdas Ram and another ......Appellants Versus Jallo Bibi aged 47 years and others .....Respondents 2. FAO No.3360 of 2011 Jaswant Ram son of Gurdas Ram and another ......Appellants Versus Chhinder Singh aged 23 years son of Harnam Singh, resident of Basti Gobindgarh village Mohan Ke Hithar Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur .....Respondent 3. FAO No.3361 of 2011 Jaswant Ram son of Gurdas Ram and another ......Appellants Versus Sukhdev Singh aged 16 years minor son of Karnail Singh resident of Jhoke Dipulana, Tehsil Fazilka District Ferozepur through his next friend natural guardian and father Karnail Singh son of Inder Singh .....Respondent Present: Mr. O.P. Kamboj, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. All the appeals are connected arising out of same accident. The appeal in FAO No.3359 of 2011 is against the award where the person that died was said to have got crushed by the bus turning turtle when driver applied brakes suddenly. A FIR had been immediately FAO No.3359 of 2011 (O&M) -2- lodged at the instance of the brother of the deceased stating that the deceased was a passenger in the bus and he died when the bus turned turtle and he got crushed under the bus. At the trial, the person, who lodged the FIR, stated that he did not know who lodged the FIR and there was no evidence to say that the deceased had died only on account of the motor accident. The contention of the driver of the bus was that the deceased was travelling in a jeep standing on the foot rest and when the jeep was going at over-speed, he fell down and he died just about the very same time when the bus turned turtle. The Tribunal found that the fact that the case had been registered against the driver of the bus and the fact that person died at the spot where the bus had fallen, was sufficient to bring the fact of the bus turning turtle as the proximate cause of the death of the deceased. The learned counsel argues that the case of involvement of the bus was made only on the statement in the FIR and the author of the FIR himself did not stand by what the document contained. The Tribunal had no evidence at all before it to find that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident or that the bus had been involved in the accident. 2. The fact that the author of the FIR did not own the statement at the time of trial, in my view, is not itself sufficient to discredit the finding of the Tribunal. There is no denying the fact that the deceased died at the very same time when the bus turned turtle and he was at the spot where the bus had capsized. It was too much of a coincidence to believe that the deceased died by a fall from a jeep in the very same place where the bus turned turtle and he died without coming in any contact with the bus. The Tribunal has found that the deceased could have died only in the manner spoken to by the witness that he was FAO No.3359 of 2011 (O&M) -3- travelling by the bus and when the bus turned turtle, he got crushed underneath the bus and got killed. I will not find a reason to vacate the finding already rendered and hold the involvement of the vehicle as established. 3. Even as regards the quantum, the evidence of the son of the deceased was that his father was a mason and the Tribunal accepted that evidence to hold that he could have earned at least Rs.4500/- and proceeded to determine a compensation at Rs.4,30,000/-. Learned counsel argues that the other two witnesses had not spoken any where about the avocation of the deceased as Mason and that he was earning Rs.4500/-. If the son of the deceased is giving a statement that his father was working as Mason and the claimants were the wife, two children and parents, I have no reason to suspect that the person was unemployed or that the claimant was uttering falsehood relating to his father's avocation. I find the assessment of compensation made by the Tribunal as just and I will not make any modification with reference to the quantum of compensation also. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 5. FAO Nos.3360 and 3361 of 2011 arise out of the very same accident where the claims emanate from persons, who had been injured while travelling in the bus. The findings, which I have rendered in the above appeal regarding the involvement of the vehicle and as to how the claimants have come by injuries, will apply to them also. Both the cases would, therefore, require consideration as regards the quantum assessed by the Tribunal. 6. As regards the award in FAO No.3360 of 2011, the assessment of compensation fell under three heads as follows:- FAO No.3359 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 1 On account of expenses incurred by the claimant upon his medical treatment including admission fee, operation charges, amount spent upon medicines, medical tests and other incidental medical expenses Rs.17,000/- 2 On account of pain suffering and loss of happiness suffered by the claimant Rs.15,000/- 3 On account of transportation charges Rs.3000/- Total Rs.35,000/- 7. I find that the assessment is reasonable and just and I would find no reason to interfere with the same. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 8. As regards the quantum for compensation in FAO No.3361 of 2011, the claimant was a boy of age 16 years, whose leg had been amputated. The Tribunal has determined a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards 75% permanent disability, loss of income and loss of future earning capacity. The Tribunal also provided for Rs.45,000/- being the medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- for transportation charges and Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering. The assessment made by the Tribunal is exceedingly modest and even several heads of claim like loss of amenities of life, loss of prospect of marriage etc. had not been considered by the Tribunal. There is no scope for reduction by interference with assessment of compensation, which is already made by the Tribunal. 9. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 03, 2011 Pankaj*