IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. F.A.O.(MVA) No.: 167 of 2004. Decided on: 15.07.2008. H.R.T.C. … … Appellant. Versus Smt. Taro Devi & Others. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. H.S. Rawat, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The appellant-H.R.T.C. has challenged the award dated 28.2.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in MAC case No.4-G/2001. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that on 10.2.2001 at 5.30 P.M. after taking chawarkh Bhog in the village, the deceased alongwith Bir Chand son of Sunka Ram, resident of village Rainta and two other were sitting in front of the house of Bir Chand. They were sitting outside on the side of the road, i.e. Dhawala-Ghalour Road. In the mean time bus bearing No.HP-36-0390 owned by the H.R.T.C. Dehra depot came from Dehra side. It was going to Ghalour in an excessive speed and came on the extreme side of the katcha portion Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - of the road and struck against the deceased. He was dragged 4 to 5 feet as a result of such act he sustained numerous injuries and became unconscious. The driver stopped the bus at a distance. The respondents No.1 to 3 filed claim petition before the learned M.A.C.T., Kangra at Dharamshala claiming a sum of rupees ten lacs as compensation. The appellants and the driver of the bus contested the claim. In the replies they had denied the factum of accident. The claimants had filed rejoinder to the replies. The learned M.A.C.T. on the bases of the evidence led by the parties awarded a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment. The appellant-Corporation has challenged the award dated 28.2.2004. Mr. H.S. Rawat has strenuously argued that the award dated 28.2.2004 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then contended that the findings recorded by the learned M.A.C.T. that the accident has been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the H.R.T.C. bus by the driver are perverse and liable to be set aside. He further contended that the learned M.A.C.T. has not applied the proper multiplier. On the other hand, Mr. Ramakant Sharma appearing on behalf of the respondents-claimants had supported the award dated 28.2.2004. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. PW-4 is Shri Bir Chand. He has deposed that on 10.2.2001 at about 5.30 P.M. he alongwith Kanna Ram deceased and Ami Chand was sitting in front of his house in the Katcha portion of the road. Bus bearing No.HP-36-0390 came from Dawala side and it was going to Ghalour with excessive speed. It went out of control and came towards - 3 - katcha portion of the road and hit deceased Kanna Ram from the left side of the back door. The deceased was dragged to 4/5 feet. He then stated that the bus driver, i.e. respondent No.4 stopped the bus at a distance. He was taken to hospital, where he expired. PW-5 has conducted the post mortem of deceased Kanna Ram. RW-1, Prem Singh, driver of the bus had denied the accident. The statement of PW-4, the eye witness is corroborated by the FIR. The manner, in which the accident has taken place, has been precisely mentioned in the FIR. PW-5 has deposed that the injuries received by the deceased were possible in the vehicular accident. In view of the statement of PW-1 duly corroborated by FIR read with statement of PW-5 the only inference which can safely be drawn is that the respondent No.4 was rash and negligent in driving the bus which has resulted in the accident. Now the Court has to consider whether the multiplier applied by the learned M.A.C.T. at the age of 50 years is proper or not. The age of Kanna Ram was 50 years. The learned M.A.C.T. has applied the multiplier of 8 while working out the dependency. The Court is of the firm opinion that the multiplier applied by the learned M.A.C.T. of 8 at the age of 50 is in accordance with law. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. July 15, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma), (sck) Judge.