F.A.O NO.1062 OF 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O NO.1062 OF 2010 (O & M) DECIDED ON : 08.03.2010 PRTC and another ...Appellants versus Kuldeep Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is an appeal directed by PRTC against the award dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Adhoc), Patiala. Kuldeep Singh-husband, Harshdeep Singh-minor son, Jarnail Singh-father-in-law and Gurmeet Kaur-mother-in-law preferred a claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of Mandeep Kaur in a motor vehicular accident. As per the case of the claimants, on 18.01.2009 Kuldeep Singh along with his wife Mandeep Kaur and his minor son Harshdeep Singh, was coming to village Sanour on his motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-39C-326, which was being F.A.O NO.1062 OF 2010 (O & M) -2- driven by him at a normal speed. Mandeep Kaur was pillion rider and Harshdeep Singh was sitting in front of Kuldeep Singh. When they reached in front of village Muradpur on Rajpura-Patiala road , a bus bearing registration No. PB-11P-7410 being driven by respondent No.3 rashly and negligently, came from the back side and struck the motorcycle from behind due to which Kuldeep Singh and his minor son Harshdeep Singh fell on the left kachha side of the road while Mandeep Kaur fell on the road. The driver of the bus passed over the rear tyre of the bus over her head and crushed her head due to which she died at the spot. Kuldeep Singh and his minor received received injuries. Gurmukh Singh witnessed the occurrence. The bus was stopped and the driver was apprehended at the spot. The matter was reported to the police and FIR No. 30 dated 18.01.2009 was registered against the driver of the bus. The deceased was 27 years old and was a house-wife. She was earning Rs.5000/- per month from stiching and by running beauty parlour. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed written statement denying the accident. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : 1. Whether on 18.01.2009 respondent No.3 while driving the bus bearing No. PB-11P-7410 rashly and negligently cause the death of Mandeep Kaur as alleged ? OPP F.A.O NO.1062 OF 2010 (O & M) -3- 2. Whether claimants are entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged ? OPR 4. Whether the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try this petition as alleged ? OPR 5. Whether the claim petition is bad for mis joinder of the petitioners as alleged ? OPR 6. Relief. The learned Tribunal, after appraisal of the evidence, returned the findings on Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. While determining Issue No.2, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.3000/- per month and the dependency is taken as Rs.2000/- per month. The yearly dependency was taken as Rs.24,000/- and the multiplier of 16 was applied. In this manner, an amount of Rs.3,84,000/-(24000 x 16) was granted to the claimants. Issues No.3 to 5 were decided against the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently challenged the findings of Issue No.1 regarding negligence of bus driver. It is argued that no accident has taken place and in fact F.A.O NO.1062 OF 2010 (O & M) -4- Randhir Singh went to the spot when the accident had already taken place. The person present at the spot asked Randhir Singh to take the deceased to the hospital, to which he refused and consequently, a false case has been registered against him. The argument sounds well but is without any reasoning. The case of the claimants is crystal clear that after the accident, Randhir Singh was apprehended at the spot. Kuldeep Singh has supported the prosecution version. The bald statement of Randhir Singh has not been accepted. No complaint by Randhir Singh to any higher authority regarding his false implication, has been made. So, findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No.1 stands upheld. Regarding quantum, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no proof regarding income of the deceased and on that account, the amount of compensation is on higher side. The Tribunal has taken the dependency of the deceased only to the extent of Rs.2000/- per month. Even a servant engaged to look after the family, will demand more money than Rs.2000/- per month. So the dependency taken by the Tribunal as Rs.2000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that Jarnail Singh and Gurmeet Kaur were not dependent on the deceased. However, this aspect can be challenged by Kuldeep Singh. Kuldeep Singh being husband and F.A.O NO.1062 OF 2010 (O & M) -5- Harshdeep Singh being minor son are the legal heirs of deceased Mandeep Kaur. So their share has been decreased by making payment to Jarnail Singh and Gurmeet Kaur but they have not agitated the same. Consequently, the appeal warrants no interference and the same stands dismissed. MARCH 08, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE