FAO No. 117 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 117 of 2011 Date of decision January 12 , 2011 Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another ....... Appellant Versus Smt. Kala Rani and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** 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). CM No.688-CII of 2011 1. There is a delay of 74 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed. Delay of 74 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.117 of 2011 2. The appeal is against the determination of compensation for death of a person who was aged 42 years. The accident was supposed to have taken place when he was attempting to board the bus from front side instead of rear side and he slipped and fell down and got under the tyres. The contention was that the deceased could not have attempted to board the bus from the front side and he was himself FAO No. 117 of 2011 2 responsible for the accident and that no negligence could be attributed to the driver of the vehicle. The evidence with reference to the nature of accident through PW-1 was that the bus had stopped at Kalka Chowk, Ambala. He boarded the bus first and the deceased was boarding, when the driver without waiting for the whistle of the conductor, had started the bus and due to sudden jerk with which the vehicle started, the deceased fell down from the door of the bus and came under the rear vehicle. From the manner in which the narration of the accident is made, I have no doubt in my mind with the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the bus was negligent in driving and that only his negligence contributed to the accident. The conductor was not examined in this case to give any positive evidence about the fact that any passenger could have got only through the rear door not through the front door. The finding of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus was therefore correctly made and calls for no interference. 3. Even as regards quantum of compensation for a person who was aged 42 years, the Tribunal had merely taken note of the salary last drawn and had not factored the prospect of increase in income for a person who was employed in Haryana Roadways, The grievance of the appellant is that for salary of Rs.11,147/- after taking 1/3rd deduction the Tribunal found the dependency at Rs.8,000/- when the actual figure was Rs.7432/-. The Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 15 and according to him the additional amount of Rs.500/- would have made difference of Rs.1,00,000/-. I cannot accept such a contention since the approximation that the Tribunal had done was a modest increase of Rs.500/- when we have come by dispensation through decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court that provides even for 30% for salary for persons who were employed in government service. For a person who was working on a contract, the Tribunal had made an increase of Rs.500/-. Learned counsel further states FAO No. 117 of 2011 3 that the interest awarded at 9% is also higher and the interest could have been awarded only at 6%. I cannot entertain the appeal only on the issue of interest, having rejected two other contentions raised on behalf of the Corporation regarding negligence and the quantum. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE Jaunary 12, 2011 archana