IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3242 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: February 9, 2010. Rishi Pal ...Appellant(s) v. Prem Chand & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant(s). Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): CM Nos.2400 & 2401-CII of 2010 After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, the order dated 17.12.2009 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. Civil Misc. applications stand disposed of. FAO No.3242 of 2009 This appeal has been filed by the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle challenging the award of the Tribunal whereby compensation amounting to Rs.1.25 lacs has been granted to the respondent for the death of a minor child of 5 years of age in a motor vehicular accident caused due to the use of the offending vehicle on an application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act). Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that from the evidence on record it is established that the child and her mother were negligent while crossing the road and, therefore, at the most it was a case of contributory negligence and the appellant cannot be fastened with the total liability. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is without any substance. Admittedly, this petition was filed for grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. It is the legislative intentment of the statute that the question of negligence is not to be gone into in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act and it is sufficient if the involvement of the vehicle in the accident in question alone is established. It is pertinent to mention that the death of the child in the accident in question has not been denied. Learned counsel for the appellant has also questioned the amount of compensation granted to the claimant. According to him, the amount of compensation of Rs.1.25 lacs is excessive. Learned counsel has argued that the income of the deceased child was not capable of assessment as his future was uncertain. I find no merit in this argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant also. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and after relying upon the judgment of this Court in Bimla Devi etc. v. National Insurance Co. & anr., 1988(2) PLR 301. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. February 9, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge