FAO No.3595 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3595 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 12.05.2011 U.P.S.R.T.C. Hathras Depot H.O. Mathura, U.P. through General Manager (owner of the offending vehicle/bus No.UP-81-N-9418) ......Appellant Versus Smt. Leela wife of Shri Sohan Lal and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 by the State Road Transport Corporation is on the issue of quantum contending that the accident had taken place by the negligence of the deceased or at any rate by the contributory negligence of the driver of the car, which dashed against the Corporation bus. The issue of negligence, in my view, is not relevant in a situation of collision and where the claims emanated from persons, who were representatives of the deceased, whose income was at Rs.3600/- per month. Where the Tribunal assessed the income even less than Rs.40,000/-, even if an application is made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court's power to appraise a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act has been affirmed by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dhanbai Kanji Gadhvi 2011 (2) SCC 240. I would apply, therefore, the principle of strict FAO No.3595 of 2011 (O&M) -2- liability under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and find that even in the absence of negligence, the claimants were entitled to pursue the claim and secure the awards in the manner as determined by the Tribunal. 2. The assessment of compensation is on the basis that he was earning Rs.3600/- per month and after deduction of personal expenses, monthly dependency had been taken at Rs.2700/- to determine a compensation of Rs.5,23,400/-. The compensation is just and proper and there is no scope to interfere with the same. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 12, 2011 Pankaj*