FAO No.2291 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4169 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 23.03.2011 Channa Ram son of Sh. Munshi Ram (jat) resident of village Kumharia, P.O. Kagdana, Tehsil and District Sirsa, Haryana. ......Appellant Versus Ravinder son of Sh. Bhiman and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Yash Dev Kaushik, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is by the Transport Corporation against the award passed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants are the representatives of a pillion rider in a motor cycle which dashed against the Transport Corporation's bus. The petition had been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, in which case it would mean that the claimants are not required to prove the issue of negligence at all. The involvement of the appellant's vehicle itself is not in doubt. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that it was a case of contributory negligence. I will not entertain such a plea in a case where the petition was founded under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act to restrict liability of claim as envisaged in the provision. Learned counsel also states that the appropriate multiplier only be FAO No.2291 of 2011 (O&M) -2- made to depend on the age of the parents, not on the age of the deceased. If a claim is made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and a ground is made for its application as regards the income status of the deceased, there is no need for a Court to apply a different yardstick. In fact, any deviation from Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in such a case would itself be inappropriate. The mistakes contained in the provision had been pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UPSRTC Vs. Trilok Chandra 1996 ACJ 831 (SC) but still the legislative changes have not been effected. 4. There is no scope for any deviation from Section 163-A in such a case where the petition is founded under such provisions only and not under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The award is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 22, 2011 Pankaj*