FAO No.6100 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6100 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 27.05.2011 Jammu and Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation, Jammu (J&K), through its General Manager, Jammu Depot Jammu (J&K) (owner of the bus No.JKZ-498). ......Appellant Versus Ashok Kumar and others .....Respondents 2. FAO No.6103 of 2010 (O&M) State Road Transport Corporation, Jammu through its G.M. ......Appellant Versus Ashok Kumar and others .....Respondents 3. FAO No.6114 of 2010 (O&M) Jammu and Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation, Jammu (J&K), through its General Manager, Jammu Depot Jammu (J&K) (owner of the bus No.JKZ-498). ......Appellant Versus Kanta Devi and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. K.S. Cheema, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. Delay in refiling and filing the appeal are condoned. All the FAO No.6100 of 2010 (O&M) -2- three appeals are connected as arising out of the same accident. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has no fundamental dispute about proposition brought through certaion decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court, that the Corporation that owned the vehicle would become liable for an accident that had happened while the persons were travelling in bus and got killed due to a bomb blast in the bus. The issue in challenge in appeals is only as regards the quantum of compensation. 3. In FAO No.6100 of 2010, the Transport Corporation has challenged the award of Rs.1,30,000/- granted to a person, whose leg has been amputated in the bomb blast while travelling in bus as excessive. I reject the contention that it is excessive and confirm the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed. 4. In FAO No.6103 of 2010, the contention of the counsel is that the compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- has been awarded in favour of all adult sons. The application has been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and there cannot be any deviation from manner of assessment of compensation for death. Schedule II itself sets out no particular disqualification for a major son to make a claim. So long as the compensation is arrived on the scales which are laid down through Schedule II, there could be no exception taken to the award which is passed. 5. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 6. In FAO No.6114 of 2010 the quantum of compensation awarded to the widow and minor children is a reasonable sum of Rs.3,07,200/- and the compensation has been worked out on the scales laid down by FAO No.6100 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Schedule II for a person whose income was said to be Rs.3300/- per month. 7. I do not find any error in the assessment of compensation. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 27, 2011 Pankaj*