IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.779 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.05.2011 Shakuntla Devi and others ...Appellants versus Nirmal Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. V.K.Jindal, Advocate, for the appellants. None for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 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) 1. The appeal is against the award granting Rs.50,000/- as compensation on no fault basis when the contention on behalf of the claimants was that the accident had taken place on account of negligent driving of the driver of the bus owned by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. The claimants contended that the deceased was travelling with his father in a scooter and the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation dashed against the petitioner from the back side that resulted in the deceased falling down and succumbing to the injuries. The driver FAO No.779 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - of the bus examined himself and though he admitted the involvement of the vehicle, sought to explain that the accident had taken place near a speed breaker where the speed of the bus had considerably come down. He sought to contend that the deceased was learnt to be mentally disturbed by the fact that at the relevant time, his grandmother had expired and he was going in the scooter to convey the massage to some person. The fact of accident was brought out through FIR and two witnesses PW2 and PW3 had also been examined. The Court reasoned that the accident had taken place at 10 AM in the morning and there ought to have been several persons in the vicinity, who would have known how exactly the accident had happened and the best evidence was not brought before the Court. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants states that the Tribunal has not examined the issue on merits at all, as expressly stated so in the award. He would also point out to the fact that the driver was prosecuted in a criminal case and was convicted for an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. I have no doubt in my mind that the Tribunal was in error in failing to record the finding that the accident had taken place only by the negligent driving of the Transport Corporation. 3. As regards the quantum, the deceased was 18 years of age and was said to be running a separate shop. I do not think any credence could be given to such statement in absence of any documentary proof, especially, when the father was still alive and he was said to be also running a karyana shop independently. I would take the income of the deceased at a notional sum of Rs.15,000/-, apply for 1/3rd deduction and FAO No.779 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 - take the annual contribution to the family at Rs.10,000/- and apply a multiplier of 16 and find the loss of dependency at Rs.1,60,000/-. Although the accident had taken place prior to the amendment bringing in Schedule-II, I would apply the same as appropriate to this case. I will also add Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate and funeral expenses and hold Rs.1,65,000/- with interest at 6% as payable. The amount of Rs.50,000/- already awarded shall be given due credit and the direction is made for the remaining amount in excess of the same. The liability shall be only on the Transport Corporation and shall be distributed between the parents only. 4. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30 .05.2011 sanjeev