FAO.No.1254 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO.No.1254 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.3.2009 Balbir Singh Deol ......Appellant Versus Shiv Raj Singh and others .........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. N.K. Banka, Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH,J (ORAL) By preferring this appeal, appellant-owner has challenged the award dated 28.11.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar whereby a sum of Rs.2,50,376/- has been awarded to the claimants on account of death of claimant Mohinder Kaur, due to injuries received by her in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 3.9.2007, involving bus No. PB-03F/8896 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). Briefly, the facts of the case are that claimant Mohinder Kaur, on 3.9.2007, boarded the offending vehicle at village Nauli to reach Adampur where she had to collect her family pension. After reaching her destination at 9.30 a.m. , while she was taking balance amount from the FAO.No.1254 of 2009 2 Conductor of the offending vehicle, Jaspreet Singh- driver of the offending vehicle without blowing horn put the bus in reverse motion, as a result of which claimant (since deceased) was pushed to the ground and tyre of the bus ran over her left leg. She was immediately rushed to Civil Hospital, Adampur from where she was referred to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. However, she was got admitted in Miglani Hospital, Adampur. On 17.9.2003, her leg was amputated so as to avoid septicemia. She remained admitted there upto 3.11.2007 when she breathed her last. However, prior to her death she filed claim petition seeking Rs.15 lacs as compensation on account of amputation of her leg and other expenses etc. During the pendency of the claim petition, complainant Mohinder Kaur died. Her legal heirs pursued the claim petition, which was ultimately allowed and compensation awarded, as mentioned above. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-owner and perused the impugned award. It is contended by the learned counsel that the impugned award is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the accident in question took place on 3.9.2007 whereas the claimant died on 3.11.2007 due to her diabetic condition, which fact was admitted by her son-Shivraj Singh- respondent no.1 and, therefore, the death cannot be attributed to the accident in question. I find no merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Jaspreet Singh, Driver of the offending vehicle in his examination in chief, tendered by way of his sworn affidavit Ex.RW1/A, stated that after alighting from the bus the deceased claimant while standing near the bus FAO.No.1254 of 2009 3 was taking balance amount from the Conductor and as such there was no need of blowing horn. He further stated that when he started the bus due to contact of the bus with the deceased, she fell down and might have received injuries. Thus, the factum of deceased having met with an accident on account of coming into contact of the bus was/is never denied. The next point that emerges for consideration is the cause of injury received by the deceased. Though the Driver tried to suggest that the deceased might have received injuries due to her fall on the ground but the fact remains that the deceased had suffered crush injuries, which can occur only if the limb is run over by a heavy object. The claimant had categorically taken the stand that after she fell down, her left leg was run over by the wheel of the offending bus. This claim is sufficiently corroborated by the nature of injury received by the deceased and the fact that her left leg had to be amputated. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has observed that as per post mortem report Ex.P58, the cause of death was due to septicemia due to injuries suffered in a road side accident which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. So far as the diabetic condition of the claimant is concerned it has nothing to do with the death of the deceased. All diabetic patients who undergo surgical procedures do not succumb to septicemia, though diabetes, as rightly observed by the learned Tribunal may have aggravated the risk of her post operational recovery. However, the fact that the deceased met with an accident with the offending vehicle stood admitted by the driver himself. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. I do not find any merit in this contention also. FAO.No.1254 of 2009 4 It has come on the record, by way of affidavit of Ranjit Singh,PW3, that the deceased was drawing family pension of Rs.4000/- per month. Even on the fateful day she was going to Adampur to collect her pension. Applying the income of housewives in the age group of 34 to 59 years, @ Rs.36,000/- per annum as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lata Wadhawa and others v. State of Bihar and others, The Punjab Law Reporter (2001-3)9, in my considered opinion, the annual dependency at Rs.20,000/- assessed by the learned Tribunal cannot certainly be said to be on the higher side. Further, keeping in view the age of the deceased, being 55 years, the multiplier of 8 is also just and proper and cannot be termed to be on higher side. No other point has been urged. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed. 30.3.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge