FAO No.57 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.57 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 06.01.2011 The Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another .......Appellants Versus Mohinder Kaur and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. G S Gill, Advocate, for the appellants. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellant, Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, preferred this appeal against the award dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mansa (for short, ‘the Tribunal), vide which an amount of ` 2,74,000 along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount, was passed. The respondents therein were jointly and severally held liable. The learned Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim of the claimant Nos.2 and 4. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Mohinder Kaur, wife of late Sukhdev Singh, deceased; Satnam Singh and Gurnam Singh, sons FAO No.57 of 2011 (O&M) 2 of the deceased; and Balbir Kaur, daughter of the deceased, filed claim petition No.21 of 2010 before the learned Tribunal. They alleged that Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha, husband of claimant No.1 and father of the other claimants, died on 31.3.2010 in a motor vehicle accident caused by Bus No.PB11-F-9698 which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, the owner of which is the appellant. 3. Palwinder Singh, driver of the bus and the PRTC, contested the claim of the claimants on the ground that the deceased was not having any valid driving licence, the claimants are not dependents upon the deceased and that the claim is false. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- (i) Whether Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha died in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of PRTC Bus No.PB-11F/9698 by its driver respondent Palwinder Singh on 31.03.2010, in the area of Bhikhi ? OPA (2) Whether claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? OPA (3) Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR (4) Relief. 5. In order to prove their case, claimant Mohinder Kaur herself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and the claimants also examined Satnam Singh as PW2, and tendered a copy of the driving licence of Palwinder Singh, Mark-D, and a copy of registration certificate of motorcycle No.PB-31F/2684 as Mark-E. FAO No.57 of 2011 (O&M) 3 6. On the other hand, Palwinder Singh himself appeared as RW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.RW-1/A, copy of route permit, Ex.R-1, copy of driving licence, Ex.R-2 and copy of registration certificate, Ex.R-3. 7. Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimants holding that it stood prima facie proved that Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha died in motor vehicle accident caused by rash and negligent driving of PRTC bus bearing No.PB11-F-9698, which was being driven by respondent No.5-Palwinder Singh on 31.03.2010 in the area of Village Bhikhi. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of the claimants holding that claimant No.1, who is the widow of the deceased and claimant No.3-Gurnam Singh, are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,64,000 by applying the multiplier of 11. Claimant No.1, Mohinder Kaur, being spouse, was also held entitled to a sum of Rs.5000 on account of loss of consortium and claimants No.1 and 3 were held entitled to Rs.5000 towards funeral expenses. Accordingly, in all, claimants No.1 and 3 were held entitled to Rs.2,74,000 for which the driver and the owner were jointly and severally held liable. Issue No.3 was not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 9. The learned counsel assailed the findings on issues No.1 and 2. I have perused the impugned award. It has been rightly held that the driver, Palwinder Singh, was driving the bus rashly and negligently. The correct multiplier of 11 has been applied in this case. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal are well reasoned and based on evidence. Therefore, no interference is called for. FAO No.57 of 2011 (O&M) 4 10. Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 06.01.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No