IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1575 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.02.2011 Smt. Sunita Devi and others ....Appellants versus Abhey Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate, for the appellants. None for respondents 1, 4 and 5. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana, for respondents 2 and 3. ---- 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 for enhancement of compensation for a death of a male, aged 32 years. The accident was said to have taken place with the bus owned by Haryana Roadways and ran over the deceased when he was attempting to get into the bus. The driver of the bus gave evidence to the effect that it was an Express Bus with no stopping at the place where the accident was said to have taken place. He brought support to his own evidence by examining a person, who was said to be a passenger in the bus. The suggestion in the cross-examination was that her husband was a Chowkidar in the Transport Corporation and she was giving evidence to support her husband's friend who was the driver. FAO No.1575 of 1999 (O&M) - 2 - 2. The Tribunal found that although it was an Express bus some passengers had got and down and the accident had taken place when the deceased was attempting to board the bus. It apportioned therefore a higher responsibility for the deceased and apportioned the extent of negligence between the deceased and the driver as 2:1. 3. In the appeal for enhancement, the counsel for the Corporation contends that even the finding that the vehicle was involved in the accident was not correct and the best evidence was not produced before the Court. He points out to the fact that the brother of the deceased Rajbir Singh himself stated that even apart from him, there were two other witnesses, who were said to have been present at the time of the accident and who knew the involvement of the vehicle, but they had not been examined. If the case had ultimately ended in dismissal on a finding that there was wholesale negligence on the part of the driver, then it would have been possible to find a support for the dismissal even on grounds which were not favourable to the State. However, when there had been an award passed apportioning liability as 1/3rd, without preferring a cross appeal, it shall not be permissible for the State to contend that the vehicle was not involved in the accident at all. 4. In the manner the evidence was led and the non-production of important witnesses who could have spoken about the alleged negligent driving of the driver, I see no reason to take a different reasoning then how the Tribunal has adopted its reasoning to find that the deceased had contributed to the accident and the claim was, therefore, FAO No.1575 of 1999 (O&M) - 3 - bound to suffer an abatement to the accident of his negligence. 5. Learned counsel still points out that the quantum of compensation awarded was not appropriate and the choice of multiplier was lower than what the situation required. I tabulate the compensation payable to the claimants as under: Sr.No. Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) 1. Income 8,025 8,025 2. Add, % of increase 3. Deduction 1/4 4. Multiplicand 5350 x 12 5. Multiplier 16 6. Loss of dependence 10,27,200 7. Loss of consortium & loss 10,000 of love and affection 8. Loss to estate 5,000 9. Funeral expenses. 2,500 _______ _______ Total 2,56,032 10,44,700 6. Out of the compensation determined the claim has to be abate for 2/3rd for his own extent of negligence and the claimants would be entitled to 1/3rd being Rs.10,44,700 i.e. Rs.3,48,230/- The amount in excess over what has been determined already by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. The additional amount secured through this award shall be distributed between the wife and the children, who are the appellants in the appeal. 7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.02.2011 sanjeev