IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O NO. 5313 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 23.12.2008 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ...Appellant versus Manjit Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This appeal is at the instance of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation against the award dated 14.11.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur, whereby the respondent-claimants have been granted compensation to the tune of Rs.4,15,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition with future interest, on account of death of their sole bread earner Bir Singh alias Birru in a motor vehicular accident on 23.03.1995. The respondent-claimants are the widow, minor daughter and mother of deceased Bir Singh alias Birru. As per the case of the claimants, Bir Singh and his brother Ajaib Singh were coming to their house from the fields in village Bir Kalan on their respective bicycles. The cycle of Bir Singh was ahead of Ajaib Singh's cycle. When they reached near F.A.O NO. 5313 OF 2008 -2- bus stand of village Bir Kalan, a bus owned by the appellant- Corporation came from the side of village Bir Kalan at a very high speed and without blowing any horn. The bus was being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner and it struck into the cycle of Bir Singh, as a result of which, he fell down and died at the spot due to multiple injuries. The respondent-claimants have sought compensation of Rs.4 lacs by, inter-alia, on the ground that the deceased used to earn Rs.5000/- per month out of the agricultural activities and dairy farming. The appellant-Corporation and its driver filed the counter affidavit, admitting the accident caused by the bus bearing registration No. PB-11-A9258. However, the claimants' allegations that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner were specifically denied. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed following issues : i) Whether Bir Singh @ Biru died in a vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of PRTC bus No. PB-11-A-9258 by its driver, respondent No.1 Swaran Singh (since dead) ? OPP ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation ? If so, from whom and to what extent ? OPP F.A.O NO. 5313 OF 2008 -3- iii) Whether the claim petition is bad for impleading Swaran Singh as respondent ? OPR iv) Relief. Relying upon the eye witnesses' version Ajaib Singh (PW-1) and of Baldev Singh, Nambardar (PW-2), coupled with the copy of FIR No. 26 (Exhibit C-4) and the Challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Exhibit C-3), the Tribunal has answered Issue No.1 in affirmative, holding that the accident which led to spontaneous death of Bir Singh alis Birru, was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No. PB-11-A-9258 by Swaran Singh-the driver of the bus (since deceased). While determining the compensation, the Tribunal has not accepted the claimants' version in toto and has taken Rs.3000/- as monthly income of the deceased. 1/3rd of the income has been deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, thereby assessing the dependency @ Rs.2000/- per month. The deceased was about 30 years old. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17 and has accordingly assessed compensation of Rs.4,08,000/-. In addition to it, Rs.2000/- has been awarded as funeral expenses and Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length and perused the impugned award. F.A.O NO. 5313 OF 2008 -4- Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no cogent evidence to establish that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of its driver. It is argued that had it been so, the claimants would have filed the claim petition within time and not after a period of 12 years. It is then urged that the income of the deceased could not have been Rs.3000/- per month in the year 1995. It is also contended that the claimants themselves sought compensation of Rs.4 lacs whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,15,000/-. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the impugned award, I do not find any merit in the contentions noticed above. There is no denial to the fact that FIR No. 26 dated 23.03.1995 (Exhibit C-4) was got registered in respect of the accident in question, without any delay. The FIR was registered on the statement of Ajaib Singh, who witnessed the accident. Ajaib Singh himself has appeared as PW-1. The fact that the accident took place at 1:00 P.M and DDR was recorded at 3:30 P>M in which bus number, as well as, name of the driver was duly mentioned, is more than convincing to hold that the accident was caused by bus No. PB-11-A-9258. As regards the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, suffice it to refer the statement of Ajaib Singh who has categorically stated that the deceased was on the extreme left side of the road and the bus came suddenly at very high speed and without blowing any horn struck against the bicycle of Bir Singh. Nothing could be extracted F.A.O NO. 5313 OF 2008 -5- in the cross examination of the witness to discredit his version. The findings returned against Issue No.1 are, thus, based upon correct appreciation of the evidence on record and do not warrant any interference. As regards the delay in institution of the claim petition, learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that there is no limitation prescribed for institution of the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. No prejudice, what so ever, has been caused to the appellant-Corporation on account of delay as the Tribunal, being conscious of the said delay, has awarded interest to the claimants only from the date of presentation of the claim petition. There is, thus, no merit in the afore noticed plea as well. Adverting to the last submission that the claimants themselves claimed compensation of Rs.4 lacs, whereas the Tribunal has awarded them compensation of Rs.4,15,000/-, I am of the considered view that it is the Tribunal's statutory duty to determine the fair and just compensation payable to the claimants. Neither the exaggerated nor any lessor claim, made by the claimants would deprive them of what they are entitled in law. Since the Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on record, has arrived at the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,15,000/-. The lessor claim, if any made by the claimants, does not preclude them from seeking the due compensation. There is, thus, no merit in the said contention as well. F.A.O NO. 5313 OF 2008 -6- For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. The Registry is directed to remit the amount of Rs.25000/- to the Tribunal, which shall then be disbursed to the respondent-claimants without insisting for any security. DECEMBER 23, 2008 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE