FAO No. 3005 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3005 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.5.2010 ... Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Patiala, and another. ................Appellants vs. Harpreet Kaur and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. S.P. Garg, Advocate for the appellants ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is an appeal directed by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Ltd., against the award dated 23.2.2010, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, vide which the claim petition preferred by widow and minor son of Satnam Singh – deceased, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles act, was accepted and an amount of Rs.4,06,000/- was allowed. The case of the claimants is that Satnam Singh was going from Rohtiwala Pul to Nabha City on 1.8.2008, while driving scooter No. PB-11K-3643. A PRTC bus bearing No. PB-11M-1701 was FAO No. 3005 of 2010 -2- going ahead of his scooter. When at about 10.30 A.M. the said bus reached near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, Nabha, the driver of the bus applied sudden brakes. Satnam Singh could not control his scooter, which hit against the said bus from behind. As a result of this accident, Satnam Singh suffered multiple simple and grievous injuries and later on succumbed to the injuries. On put to notice, joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and they have denied the accident. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether deceased Satnam Singh died in a motor accident which occurred out of the use of bus No. PB-11M-1701 of PRTC, driven by respondent No.3, on 1.8.2008 near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, Nabha? OPA. 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPA 3. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as owner, driver and insurance company of scooter involved in accident have not been impleaded as party? If so, its effect? OPR. 4. Relief. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, returned the finding on issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the claimants. The income of the deceased was taken as Rs.3,300/- per month and cut of 1/3rd amount was applied in respect of personal expenses of the deceased. The FAO No. 3005 of 2010 -3- dependency was taken as Rs.2,200/- per month and yearly dependency was taken as Rs. 26,400/-. The age of Satnam Singh was assessed as 35 years. The multiplier of 15 was applied. In this manner, the amount of compensation was assessed as Rs.3,96,000/-. Another sum of Rs.10,000/- was allowed on account of funeral expenses and in this manner the claimants were held entitled to claim Rs.4,06,000/-. Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid award, the PRTC has preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the accident has taken place due to the fault of deceased himself and as such the appellants cannot be held liable. I have considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly lays down that negligence is not the question to be determined. The only thing which is to be determined is whether the accident has taken place by use of the vehicle. The next contention raised by counsel for the appellants is that the amount of compensation is excessive. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. According to the IInd Schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier for the age group of 35 to 40 is 16, whereas the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 only. So, the multiplier cannot be said to be on higher side. FAO No. 3005 of 2010 -4- In view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 26.5.2010 Judge chugh