FAO No.7024 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.7024 of 2010 Date of Decision. 19.01.2011 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Legal Assistant Delhi (owner of the Bus no.RJ-02-P-2203) ......Appellant Versus Aslam Ansari son of Sh. Basir Ansari and another ......Respondents 2. FAO No.7025 of 2010 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Legal Assistant Delhi (owner of the Bus no.RJ-02-P-2203) ......Appellant Versus Smt Sheela Devi and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Both the appeals are at the instance of the State Transport Corporation contending both on the issue of negligence and the quantum. 2. FAO No.7025 of 2010 arises out of an award for compensation for death of a person who was travelling in a motor cycle along with the injured, which is subject matter of appeal in FAO No.7025 of 2010. The accident was said to have taken place at the time when both the injured and the deceased were travelling in a motor cycle and they FAO No.7024 of 2010 -2- were supposed to have been hit from behind by the State Transport Corporation bus. The eye witness account was that after causing the accident, the driver of the bus got down from the bus and ran away from the spot. FIR was lodged immediately after the accident. As against the evidence tendered on behalf of the claimant, the suggestion put to him was that the driver of the motor cycle was himself negligent. The Tribunal rejected such a line of defence also as one without any pleadings. Even as regards the contention that the vehicle had not been involved at all in the accident, the Tribunal reasoned that the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus had himself not examined to tender evidence that he had not caused any accident. Non-examination of a driver in such a case was crucial and the finding that the State Transport Corporation bus was responsible for the accident and the driver was negligent cannot, therefore, be assailed. I affirm the said finding and hold that the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus was negligent and the vehicle had been involved in the accident. 3. The issue will not be complete without adverting to the contention made by the counsel appearing for the appellant that the driver of the motor cycle had not been shown to have had a driving licence to drive the motor cycle. The concept of contributory negligence cannot be inferred or presumed in cases where a person involved in the accident did not have a driving licence. This issue is again no longer res integra and this has been considered by this Court itself in Mohinder Singh Sohal Vs. Ramesh Kumar AIR 1981 (P&H) 199. There are decisions of other Courts as well taking up the same FAO No.7024 of 2010 -3- line of reasoning that want of driving licence will not be itself an inference on contributory negligence. (Please see also Gujarat State Transport Corporation Vs. Thacker Narottam Kalyanji 2000 AIHC 3117 (Guj); New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Bundel Singh Panwar AIR 2007 Uttranchal 18; Manjo Bee Vs. Sajjad Khan 2007 ACJ 737 (MP) and Sukhbir Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2006 AIHC 3587. It is also contended by him that the motor cycle was not even shown to have been insured. Even this is irrelevant and what applies to the issue of want of driving licence also would apply to an issue of driving of an uninsured vehicle as far as the finding of negligence is concerned. ( Please see Shankhardhar Singh Vs. Kundanlal 1990(2) ACC 254 (MP) ). I, therefore, reject the plea of contributory negligence also and I find that the negligence shall have to be taken as fully established against the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus. 4. As regards the quantum of compensation claimed on behalf of the claimants for the deceased, the evidence was that he was 38 years of age and earning Rs.16,000/- per month. There was no documentary evidence for such a contention but the Tribunal reasoned that a semi- skilled worker even in a rural areas would earn around Rs.3500/- and assessed the compensation on such a basis by applying a multiplier of 15 and taking the contribution to the family at 2/3rd of his income. I do not find any error in the estimation made by the Tribunal and I hold the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as just compensation. 4. As regards the claim for compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant had extensive injuries which were brought out through evidence that when the claimant was FAO No.7024 of 2010 -4- admitted he was bleeding from ear and nose and he had suffered injuries on his back, left foot, scalp and right shoulder. He was shifted to Sai Heart and Trauma Centre where he was operated upon and treated. Dr. Rakesh Singh, Orthopaedic Surgeon at the Trauma Centre had given evidence to the effect that the claimant had been admitted in the hospital on 28.04.2009 and was discharged on 09.05.2009 vide discharge receipt P-16. He had also deposed that the claimant had been operated upon on 29.04.2009 for left frontal cratonomy and EDH decompression. The pain component for a person, who had suffered injury in the head must have been enormous and the Tribunal while determining the compensation awarded Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. He was also a plumber and there was evidence that he had remained without employment for nearly three months. The Tribunal, therefore, provided for loss of income calculated at the rate of Rs.3500/-, provided for Rs.10,000/- towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges and provided the actuals of treatment expenses at Rs.73,530/-. The overall compensation which is awarded at Rs.1,24,000/- had addressed all the relevant heads of the claim and the compensation awarded was again just compensation. I find no scope for interference in either of the two cases. 5. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 19, 2011 Pankaj*